Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mammu @ Arjun Singh & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 31 July, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.GUPTA, J.
Criminal Appeal No.77/1997
Mammu @ Arjun Singh and others
VERSUS
State of Madhya Pradesh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Advocate appointed on behalf of the
appellants from the side of High Court Legal Services Authority.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on the 31st day of July, 2015) The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 18.12.1996 passed by the Special Court under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bhopal in Special Case No.150/1995, whereby the appellants have been convicted of offence under Section 325/149 of IPC in relating to the victim Shankarlal and of offence under Section 324/149 of IPC in relating to the victim Mishrilal and each sentenced to 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.300/- and 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment respectively.
2. During the pendency of the present appeal, appellants No.2 and 5 have expired and therefore, their names were deleted accordingly. The present appeal is to be considered for the
-:- 2 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.77 of 1997
appellant No.1 Mammu @ Arjun Singh, No.3 Jagdish and No.4. Pappu @ Dalpat Singh.
3. The facts of the case, in short, are that, on 13.10.1995, at about 1 p.m., Shankarlal, resident of village Kaddiya, Police Station Nasirabad, Bhopal was working in his field. The appellant Mammu @ Arjun Singh came and placed his pipes on the field of the complainant Shankarlal. Shankarlal objected that his crop of grain would be spoiled in doing so. Thereafter, the appellants gathered and started beating the victim Shankarlal by sticks etc. In the incident Shankarlal sustained a grave injury in his left arm. Mishrilal came to save the complainant Shankarlal then, the appellant Mammu @ Arjun Singh gave a blow with Farsi to Mishrilal and other appellants have also assaulted him. Shankarlal went to the Police Station Nasirabad and lodged an FIR, Ex.P/3. Both of the victims were sent for their medico legal examination. Dr.G.D.Magnani (P.W.1) examined the victims Mishrilal and Shankarlal and gave respective reports, Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2. He found 3 incised wounds to Mishrilal on left index finger, left hand and right arm, whereas 3 blunt injuries were found to Shankarlal on right leg, left arm and left leg. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.
-:- 3 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.77 of 1997
4. The appellants abjured their guilt. They took a plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter. However, no defence evidence was adduced.
5. Special Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.
6. Since no one was appearing for the appellants for a longer period, Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Advocate from the panel of High Court Legal Services Authority, who has a vast experience in dealing with the criminal cases was appointed on to argue the matter from the side of the appellants and thereafter, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It would be apparent that Shankarlal (P.W.2), Mishrilal (P.W.3) and Girdhari (P.W.4) have stated about the incident. It is clearly stated by these witnesses that initially the appellants assaulted the victims Shankarlal and thereafter, they assaulted Mishrilal by sharp cutting weapons. However, Girdharilal (P.W.4), Sitaram (P.W.5), Dallu (P.W.6) have partly turned hostile. Though Girdhari and Sitaram were not declared hostile but, each of them have stated that they found Mishrilal and Shankarlal to be unconscious and they told about the incident and therefore, according to Section 157 of the Cr.P.C., the statement given by these three witnesses corroborates the testimony of the victims. The testimony of the victims is also
-:- 4 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.77 of 1997
corroborated by timely lodged FIR, Ex.P/3 and medical opinion given by Dr. G.D.Magnani (P.W.1), who found the nature of corresponding injuries and place of injury found on the body of Shankarlal and Mishrilal as told by them. Under these circumstances, where there was no previous enmity between the appellants and the complainant Shankarlal, the evidence of Shankarlal and Mishrilal is acceptable and it is proved beyond doubt that the appellants assaulted the victim Mishrilal by sharp cutting weapons and Shankarlal by hard and blunt object. Out of them, Shankarlal sustained a grave injury.
8. As per the statements of Shankarlal and Mishrilal, Mammu @ Arjun Singh tried to take water pipes from the field of Shankarlal and Shankarlal objected. By such an act of Shankarlal, it cannot be said that the appellants got any sudden or grave provocation or any right of private defence.
The victims are beaten for more than once, whereas the appellants could know about the result of their assault when first blow was given. Under these circumstances, it would be apparent that the appellants assaulted the victims, without any right of private defence or any sudden or grave provocation. They knew the result of their act and therefore, it is established that they had voluntarily caused grave injury to Shankarlal and simple injury to Mishrilal with sharp cutting weapons.
-:- 5 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.77 of 1997
9. It is true that initially assault was opened by Mammu @ Arjun Singh but, thereafter each of the appellants participated in the crime and therefore, their common intention is visible. The appellants were 5 persons, who constituted an unlawful assembly and therefore, looking to their common intention and common object, each of them should have been convicted of offence done by one of them and therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants of offence under Section 325/149 of IPC for the victim Shankarlal and under Sections 324/149 of IPC for the victim Mishrilal. There is no reason to make any interference in the judgment passed by the trial Court relating to conviction.
10. So far as the sentence is concerned, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is acceptable that the appellants have suffered the trial and appeal for last 20 years. Two of the appellants have expired and the remaining appellants have also grown old. The appellants were the first offenders and incident was not preplanned. The incident took place when Shankarlal objected to raise water pipes in his field by the appellant No.1 Mammu @ Arjun Singh.
Under these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to sent the appellants back to the jail. It would be proper to impose a heavy fine upon the appellants for their respective offences.
-:- 6 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.77 of 1997
11. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, appeal filed by the appellants is hereby partly allowed. Their conviction of offence under Section 325/149 of IPC and Section 324/149 of IPC is hereby maintained. However, their jail sentence is removed. A fine of Rs.2,500/- is imposed upon each of the appellants for offence under Section 324/149 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, each of them shall undergo for 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment. Similarly, for offence under Section 325/149 of IPC, each of the appellants is imposed with a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default of payment of fine, each of them shall undergo for 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment. The appellants are directed to deposit the fine amount within 2 months from today. If fine is deposited then, a sum of Rs.10,000/- and a sum of Rs.7,000/- be given to the victim Shankarlal S/o Lalji, R/o village Koddiya, Tahsil Berasiya, District Bhopal and the victim Mishrilal S/o Lalji R/o Village Kota Kaddaiya, Tahsil Berasiya, District Bhopal respectively, by way of compensation.
12. The appellants are on bail. Their presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged, after depositing the fine amount.
10. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance. The trial Court is directed that if fine is not deposited within the
-:- 7 -:-
Criminal Appeal No.77 of 1997
stipulated period then, provisions of Section 68 of IPC shall be followed.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 31/7/2015 Pushpendra