Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhaiya @ Nagendra Singh vs State Of M.P. on 22 August, 2019
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No.2352/1999
Bhaiya Singh @ Nagendra Singh
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
Present : Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo, J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri T.K. Modh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-
State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting (Yes/No)
JUDGMENT
(22/08/2019) This appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.08.1999 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, District Satna in S.T. No.124/1996, whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for three years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and RI for three months, with default stipulation. It has been observed that both the sentences would run concurrently.
02. As per the prosecution story, on 22.04.1996 at about 07:00 am, the appellant came to the residence of complainant-Sheikh Liyakat and wanted to take him at granary, but complainant was not inclined to accompany him. Sheikh Jiyaul (PW-11) (brother of the complainant) informed this incident to their father-Sheikh Salamat (PW-5). When 2 CRA No.2352/1999 Sheikh Salamat (PW-5) enquired about the same, the appellant who was armed with a knife, assualted him on his abdomen with the knife. Thereafter, he ran away from the spot. During the incident, Sheikh Jiyaul (PW-11) also received injury while trying to rescue his father and brother. The appellant also assaulted him. Dehati Nalasi (Ex.P/3) has been lodged by the complainant-Sheikh Liyakat. Police Station-Nagoud, District-Satna registered offences under Sections 307 and 294 of IPC. After due investigation, police filed charge-sheet before the concerned Court.
03. After committal of the case, learned trial Court found that no case under Section 307 of the IPC is made out against the appellant, hence, acquitted him from the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, however convicted him for offences under Sections 326 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove.
04. Appellant has challenged the aforesaid findings before this Court on the grounds that, no case under Section 326 of the IPC is made out against him. The facts of the case established that the appellant assaulted Sheikh Salamat (father of the complainant) with a knife on his abdomen due to which some part of intestine came out. For the said injury, prosecution has failed to establish that the he was admitted for treatment in any hospital nor it was established that injury was sufficient to cause his death. Hence, looking to the nature of the injury, the case is covered under Section 324 of the IPC. Therefore, appellant is entitled to be acquitted from the charge under Section 326 of the IPC.
3
05. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
06. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged that the appellant caused the aforesaid injury to Sheikh Salamat with a knife. Dr. M.A. Khan (PW-15) found single injury on the body of Sheikh Salamat, which was caused by hard and sharp object. Although, doctor stated that such injury was fatal, but learned trial Court acquitted the appellant from the charge under Section 307 of the IPC.
07. Section 320 of the IPC defines the grievous injury as under:-
"Grievous hurt.--The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":--
First -- Emasculation.
Secondly --Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. Thirdly -- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, Fourthly -- Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly -- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly -- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly -- Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly -- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."
08. It is apparently clear from the record that after sustaining injury, Sheikh Salamat-father of complainant was neither admitted in any hospital for his treatment nor he had any fracture or any dislocation of the bone nor doctor found permanent disfiguration of his head or face.
09. In the opinion of this Court, none of grievous injuries, defined under Section 320 of IPC, has been sustained by the Sheikh Salamat-father of complainant. He sustained a simple injury on his abdomen. Therefore, 4 CRA No.2352/1999 he cannot be convicted under Section 326 of the IPC without proving the aforesaid injury to the Sheikh Salamat-father of complainant.
10. Accordingly, this appeal stands partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 323 of IPC do not warrant any interference. However, his conviction and sentence awarded by trial Court under Section 326 of the IPC is altered to Section 324 of IPC. The appellant is facing trial since the year 1996 and he was regularly appearing before the trial Court during trial. He is first offender. He was in custody since 19.06.1996 to 27.07.1996 for committing offence under Section 326 of IPC the trial Court has imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- on him. Therefore, he is awarded sentence for the period already undergone. However, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.7,000/-. Fine amount, if any, already paid by the appellant shall be adjusted. Out of the fine amount deposited before the trial Court Rs.3,000/- be paid to the Sheikh Salamat as compensation. Appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.
11. Let a copy of judgment along with the record be sent back to the trial Court for necessary compliance.
(SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE shabana Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI Date: 2019.08.27 10:25:56 +05'30'