Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shankarlal @ Bhawanishankar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 June, 2019
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
Cr. A. No.281 of 2017
Shankarlal @ Bhawanishankar and another Versus State of M.P.
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
Criminal Appeal No.281 of 2017
Shankarlal @ Bhawanishankar and another
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Shri Praveer Porwal, learned Counsel for the
appellants.
Shri R. K. Pathak, learned Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
With consent of the parties, the case is heard
finally.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
JUDGMENT
(25/06/2019)
1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against judgment and order dated 20.01.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.191 of 2008 by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ratlam whereby the learned Trial Court has held both the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC and awarded 5-5 years R.I. respectively and fine of Rs.1,500/- Rs.1,500/- to each of them with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case is that on 15.08.2018, the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.281 of 2017 Shankarlal @ Bhawanishankar and another Versus State of M.P. appellants, who are neighbours of the complainant, along with other co-accused persons--Kamla Bai and Parwati Bai, who have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court, were spreading 'Murram' on the backside of the house of the complainant and when they objected for the same, they assaulted them. Badarilal caused injuries to Ram Narayan and his son Bharatlal by axe. Ram Narayan lodged Dehati Nalshi. On medical examination, certain injuries were found, which in the opinion of the Doctor, were dangerous to the life. The police registered FIR No.195 of 2008 and after usual investigation filed the charge-sheet.
3. The appellants are charged under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, they absurd their guilt and claimed for trial. After the trial, the learned Trial Court acquitted Kamla Bai and Parwati Bai and convicted the present appellants, as stated in para 1 above.
4. Both the appellants have preferred this appeal on several grounds but during arguments learned Counsel representing them submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits. His limited prayer is that the appellants have served out almost three and half years of the jail sentence, therefore, their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
5. Learned Counsel drew my attention towards the fact that allegation against the appellants were that they caused injuries by axe but no incised wound or injuries caused by a 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.281 of 2017 Shankarlal @ Bhawanishankar and another Versus State of M.P. sharp object was found on the body of Ram Narayan or his son Bharatlal and this fact is confirmed by Doctor B. L. Tapdiya (PW-11). Doctor B. R. Ratnakar (PW-10), who had examined x-ray report has opined that there was no fracture on the head of Ram Nayaran and there was a fracture on fronto partial region of skull of Bharatlal son of Ram Narayan, other fractures were found old and not related to the alleged incident.
6. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of both the injured persons Ram Narayan and Bharatlal, as they have not made any allegation in Dehati Nalshi that Shankarlal had also caused any injury to the injured Ram Narayan or Bharatlal but before the Court they have stated that Shankarlal had also assaulted them and caused injuries by spade. Though, he is not emphasizing on merits, but these facts are vital and may be considered to reduce the sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer but has fairly admitted the facts pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants,
8. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court.
9. Considering the nature of dispute, injury caused by the appellants, allegation made against them, period of 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.281 of 2017 Shankarlal @ Bhawanishankar and another Versus State of M.P. custody so also the fact that they are facing trial since 2008 and are in custody from the date of judgment i.e. 20.1.2017 and have completed almost two and half years, in my considered opinion the ends of justice would be achieved if the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to some extent, therefore, this appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants recorded by the learned Trial Court for the offence under section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC is confirmed. So far as sentence awarded to them is concerned, it is modified to the extent that they are awarded imprisonment of three years and six months with fine of Rs.5,000/- each. Fine amount deposited earlier, if any, be adjusted.
10. Order of the learned trial Court regarding disposal of the property is hereby confirmed.
11. With the aforesaid modification, the present appeal is partly allowed and is disposed of.
(Virender Singh) Judge pp/ Digitally signed by Pankaj Pandey Date: 2019.06.25 16:03:07 +05'30'