Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ganpatlal Kumavat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 August, 2020
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA No.511/2018
(Ganpatlal Kumavat vs. State of MP) 1
Indore: Dated:-10/08/2020:-
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Amit Pal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
ORDER
This is an appeal against judgment and order dated 12.01.2018 passed in S.T. No.295/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and fine of Rs.2000/- for causing dangerous to life injury on the head by repeated blow of hammer.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 01/09/2015 at about 08:30 in the morning the complainant/injured Gopal Kumawat P.W.1 was sitting at the motor winding shop of Govind Singh Rajput along with Badri, Ramchandra and Govindsingh. The appellant came on motorcycle and started abusing him. When he was asked not to do so, he suddenly wielded a hammer that he had in his hand and hit him thrice. The complainant fell to the ground with active bleeding and was admitted to a hospital. After receiving information, ASI Umesh Vyas of P.S. Y.D. Nagar, Mandsaur reached there and recorded dehati nalishi Ex.P/1. On medical examination corresponding injury was found on the head of the complainant, which was caused by hard and blunt object within six hours of the examination. In X-ray, segmental HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.511/2018 (Ganpatlal Kumavat vs. State of MP) 2 fracture of left zygomatic bone, left mandibular fossa and comminuted depressed fracture in right temporo-parietal region was found, swelling in temporal and parietal region was observed and also swelling in his brain's parenchyma region with hemorrhage was also observed. The doctor opined that the injury was dangerous to the life. Dr. Saurav Mandwariya P.W.8. Dr. R.L. Ladda P.W.12 and Dr. DK Bhatnagar P.W.5, Dr. Saurav Mandwariya P.W.8 and Dr. R.L. Ladda P.W.12 confirmed the injury caused to the complainant.
3. The appellant was arrested and produced before the Court. He was charged under Section 307 of IPC. He denied the charge. After the trial he was convicted and punished as stated in para-1 above.
4. The appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds, but during the argument the learned counsel submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits. His limited prayer is that there is no evidence of any old enmity between the parties. The incident happened all of a sudden in a fit of rage. Without any intention, preparation or premeditation, the appellant picked up the hammer and weileded the same. There is no evidence that he intented to cause death. It is further submitted that the appellant is first offender and has no criminal antecedent. No other criminal case has ever been registered against him. He was 40 years HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.511/2018 (Ganpatlal Kumavat vs. State of MP) 3 old at the time of the incident. Out of 4 years, with remission, he has already been served out 3 years 6 months 15 days imprisonment. He has been in jail since 02.09.2015 to 03.10.2015 (32 days) and is in jail since 12.01.2018. He belongs to a poor family and was the sole breadwinner of the family. No one else is there to support his family. Due to imprisonment, his family is facing financial hardship and it has now become difficult for them to survive, therefore, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
5. Learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer and has submitted that looking to the nature of the case, the appellant is not entitled for any leniency.
6. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor could not point out evidence to rebut the contentions of the appellant. Both the parties were known to each other. The incident occurred all of sudden. Heated arguments escalated, turned sour and led to the incident. On due consideration of the nature of the incident, age of the appellants and the other facts and circumstances of the case, so also the fact that the appellant has already served out substantial sentence of more than three and half years with remission, in order to meet the ends of justice, it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence. Therefore, conviction of the appellant under section 307 of HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.511/2018 (Ganpatlal Kumavat vs. State of MP) 4 the IPC is hereby maintained, but considering the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case, his sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is set aside. He is awarded Three years and seven months rigorous imprisonment along with the fine and default punishment imposed by the learned trial Court.
8. The order of the trial Court regarding disposal of the case property is hereby confirmed.
9. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. However no order as to the cost.
(Virender Singh) Judge soumya Digitally signed by Soumya Soumya Ranjan Dalai DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, postalCode=452001, Ranjan st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=f4d2118683e84322 bb5797cf28ee60671538b73 Dalai 7cf52962d84d7b527897e53 ac, cn=Soumya Ranjan Dalai Date: 2020.08.14 11:12:56 +05'30'