Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju @ Rajendra Sharma vs State Of M.P. on 27 April, 2017
Author: G.S. Ahluwalia
Bench: G.S. Ahluwalia
1 Cr.A. No. 170 of 2007
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
Criminal Appeal No. 170 OF 2007
Raju @ Rajendra Sharma
-Vs-
State of M. P.
________________________________________________
Shri O.P. Mathur, Counsel for the appellant.
Shri Girdhari Singh Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
(27/04/2017) This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been filed against the judgment dated 28.12.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in S.T.No.199/2005 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and under Section 324 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of seven years and fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment of one year with default imprisonment.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 04.09.2005, the complainant Ram Babu lodged a FIR on the allegation that he is residing at Hajipur, Sironj along with his wife and the accused Raju who is his son. Raju is in habit of consuming liquor and after consuming liquor, he used to abuse his uncle Prakash. At about 11.30 in the night, the accused Raju under the influence of alcohol was abusing his uncle Prakash and when the wife of the complainant tried to stop the accused from 2 Cr.A. No. 170 of 2007 abusing, at that time, the accused Raju assaulted in the abdomen of the wife of the complainant by means of a knife. When the complainant tried to save his wife, then the accused caused an injury on the left side of his abdominal region. The appellant was arrested just after three hours of the incident i.e., on 05.09.2005 at about 2 in the morning. A knife was seized from his possession. The police after recording the statements of the witnesses and getting the injured treated and after completing the investigation filed the charge-sheet against the appellant for offence under Section 307 of IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act.
The Trial Court by order dated 27.02.2006 framed charge under Section 307 of IPC for making an attempt to kill the complainant Ram Babu and the injured Sheela Bai.
The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined Ram Babu (P.W.1), Satya Narayan (P.W.2), Dr. Vivek Agrawal (P.W.3), Smt. Sheela Devi (P.W.4), Iswari Prasad Sharma (P.W.5), Jitendra Singh Sengar (P.W.6), Murari Lal Meena (P.W.7), Virendra Singh Sengar (P.W.8), Nagendra Pateriya (P.W.9) and Dr. U.D. Saxena (P.W.10).
The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.
Dr. Vivek Agrawal (P.W.3) has stated that on 05.09.2005 he was working on the post of Medical Officer, Government Rajiv Gandhi Smriti Chikitsalaya, Sironj. The injured Ram Babu and Sheela Devi were brought for medical examination at about 12:30 in the night. On medical examination of Ram Babu, he found one incised wound of 2 cm x 1 ½ cm x depth cannot be measured due to bleeding from wound, over left side of lower abdomen. The MLC report of injured Ram Babu is Exhibit P-3. Similarly, he had 3 Cr.A. No. 170 of 2007 examined Smt. Sheela Devi and found one incised wound of 1 ½ cm x ½ x skin deep over right side of abdomen. The nature of the injury was found to be simple. The MLC report of Smt. Sheela Devi is Exhibit P-4. Similarly, the accused/appellant was brought for medical examination and he had found that the appellant was drunk and no external injury was found on his body. The MLC report of the appellant Raju is Exhibit P-6. At about 2:30 in the morning, the police had brought one injured Virendra Singh. On medical examination, he found one abrasion of 1 cm x ¼ cm x skin deep on right inter phalangeal joint of right index finger. The MLC report is Exhibit P-5. It is further stated by this witness that on 16.09.2005, the police had sent the knife with a query that whether the injuries sustained by the injured Ram Babu and Sheela Bai could have been caused by the weapon or not? After examination of the weapon, it was found by him that the injuries sustained by Ram Babu, Sheela Bai and Virendra Singh could have been caused by the weapon. The query report is Exhibit P-7.
Dr. U.D. Saxena (P.W.10) has stated that on 05.09.2005, he was working on the post of R.S.O. Surgery in the Surgical Department of Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. The injured Ram Babu was brought for medical treatment. On medical examination, he found one incised wound of 2 x 2 cm deep upto abdominal cavity over left anterior side of flank with active oozing of blood and operation was performed. Peritoneal rent was repaired and according to this witness, injury caused to the injured Ram Babu was dangerous to life. The examination report given by this witness is Exhibit P-17 and the injured Ram Babu remained admitted in the hospital from 05.09.2005 till 11.09.2005. In cross-examination, this witness specifically stated that the 4 Cr.A. No. 170 of 2007 injuries sustained by the injured Ram Babu was dangerous to his life. Although, it was admitted that the injuries which was sustained by Ram Babu could have been caused in case fall on a pointed article.
From the plain reading of the evidence of Dr. Vivek Agrawal (P.W.3) and Dr. U.D. Saxena (P.W.10), it is clear that immediately after the incident, the injured witnesses were sent for medical examination and the injuries caused by the knife was found on their body and the injuries found on the body of the injured was corroborating the FIR lodged by Ram Babu. The injuries sustained by Ram Babu was found dangerous to his life. He was operated upon and peritoneal rent was repaired.
So far as the injuries sustained by Smt. Sheela Devi and Virendra Singh are concerned, according to Dr. Vivek Agrawal (P.W.3), the nature of injuries were simple. Thus, it is clear that the injured Ram Babu had sustained injury which was dangerous to his life, whereas, the injuries sustained by Smt. Sheela Devi and Virendra Singh were simple in nature.
The next question for determination is that who is the author of the injuries sustained by the injured Ram Babu, Smt. Sheela Devi and Virendra Singh.
Ram Babu (P.W.1) had stated that at about 11 in the night, the appellant was abusing his younger brother (uncle of appellant) after consuming liquor. When the wife of this witness namely Smt. Sheela Devi tried to peruse the appellant not to act in such a manner, at that time, he caused an injury on the right side of the abdomen of Smt. Sheela Devi. Blood started oozing out and when this witness came there in order to save his wife, at that time, the appellant assaulted this witness by means of a knife on the 5 Cr.A. No. 170 of 2007 left side of his abdomen. Thereafter, the injured Prakash intervened in the matter. He immediately lodged a report in police Station Sironj. The FIR is Exhibit P-1 which bears his signature. Thereafter, he was sent by the police to the Government Hospital for medical examination along with his wife. This witness was thereafter referred to Hamidia Hospital for further treatment. This witness was cross- examined by the appellant in detail. He admitted that the appellant is one of his sons and was also residing along with this witness in the same house. It was further admitted that the appellant had married a girl of a different caste but claimed that the said fact has nothing to do with the said incident. He further denied that because of the inter-caste marriage by the appellant, therefore, not only he was ousted from the house but he was deprived of the property. It was further stated that at the time when the incident took place, the appellant was under the influence of alcohol. This witness further denied the suggestion that because he had fallen on a sharp article, therefore, he sustained the injuries. He denied the fact that he was under the influence of liquor and, therefore, he had fallen down. He further denied that because it was a dark therefore his wife Sheela Devi while coming down from the stairs had also fallen down, as a result of which, she had also sustained injuries. This witness further stated that he went to the police station and lodged the FIR. He was treated in the hospital and thereafter he was sent to Hamidia Hospital for further treatment. He denied the suggestion that the appellant had not assaulted this witness or his wife and as this witness and his wife were not giving the share in property, therefore, a false FIR has been lodged.
Satya Narayan (P.W.2) has not supported the 6 Cr.A. No. 170 of 2007 prosecution and was declared hostile.
Smt. Sheela Devi (P.W.4) has also supported the prosecution case and has stated that when she tried to peruse the appellant not to abuse Prakash, at that time, the appellant assaulted on the right side of her abdomen. When her husband tried to intervene in the matter, then he too was assaulted by the appellant. The friend of the appellant Gyan was present in the house and he intervened in the matter. The FIR was lodged by Ram Babu. This witness and Ram Babu were sent for medical treatment. Ram Babu was referred to Hamidia Hospital at Bhopal. On the next day of incident, the police came on the spot, however, stated that the spot map was not prepared in her presence but admitted that the spot map Exhibit P-8 bears her signature. She also denied that any article was seized from the spot by the police but she admitted her signature on the seizure memo which is Exhibit P-9. This witness further denied that the knife was seized from the possession of the appellant but she admitted her signature on the seizure memo Exhibit P-10. In cross-examination, this witness had admitted that the appellant at the time of incident was under the influence of alcohol. This witness was cross-examined in detail and she admitted that the appellant was under the influence of liquor at the time of incident. However, she denied the suggestion that as the appellant has married a girl belonging to another caste, therefore, he has been deprived from his right in the property. She further denied that she was tutored by the Public Prosecutor before recording of her evidence. She further denied that Ram Babu (P.W.1) was under the influence of liquor and because of that he fell down and sustained injuries. She denied that she also sustained injuries because of fall.
7 Cr.A. No. 170 of 2007Iswar Prasad Sharma (P.W.5) has prepared the spot map Exhibit P-11.
Jitendra Singh Sengar (P.W.6) had recovered flag stone from the courtyard of the house of Ram Babu (P.W.1) which was stained with blood and it was seized on the spot vide seizure memo Exhibit P-9.
Murari Lal Meena (P.W.7) had brought the clothes of Ram Babu (P.W.1) from Hamidia Hospital in a sealed condition which was seized by N.K. Pateriya vide seizure memo Exhibit P-12.
Virendra Singh Sengar (P.W.8) has partially seen the incident and he had stated that he went to the house of the appellant in order to leave him. After the appellant had his meals, he started abusing his uncle Prakash Sharma. The parents of the appellant tried to persuade the appellant not to abuse his uncle. This witness has stated that thereafter he had seen Ram Babu (P.W.1) and Smt. Sheela Bai (P.W.4) in an injured condition. Although, this witness has also received some injury but he did not support the prosecution case to the effect that as to how he sustained the said injuries. This witness was declared hostile as he had also not supported the prosecution case with regard to the assault made by the appellant to his parents. In cross- examination, this witness also admitted that although the appellant had assaulted his mother Smt. Sheela Devi (P.W.4) and father Ram Babu (P.W.1) but he could not see the weapon which was used by the appellant. This witness was examined in detail but nothing could be elicited from his evidence which may support the prosecution case.
Nagendra Pateria (P.W.9) had written the FIR which is Exhibit P-1. Ram Babu (P.W.1) and Smt. Sheela Devi (P.W.4) were sent for medical examination. The appellant was 8 Cr.A. No. 170 of 2007 arrested vide seizure memo Exhibit P-13 and a knife was seized from the possession of the appellant vide seizure memo Exhibit P-10. Spot map was prepared which is Exhibit P-8 and one flag stone was seized from the courtyard of the injured vide seizure memo Exhibit P-9. The sealed clothes which were brought by the constable Murari Lal from Hamidia Hospital belonging to Ram Babu were seized vide seizure memo Exhibit P-12. The seized knife was sent to the doctor for examination. The query raised by this witness is Exhibit P-15. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Again this witness was cross-examined in detail but nothing could be elicited from his cross-examination which may probalize the case of the defence.
Thus, after considering the evidence which has come on record, it is clear that Ram Babu (P.W.1) and Smt. Sheela Devi (P.W.4) who are the parents of the appellant have specifically supported the prosecution case and they have stated that the appellant was abusing his uncle Prakash Sharma. At that time, these witnesses tried to persuade the appellant not to abuse his uncle and the appellant initially assaulted his mother Smt. Sheela Devi (P.W.4) and on the intervention of his father Ram Babu (P.W.1) he too was assaulted by the appellant by means of a knife. According to doctor, the injuries which were received by the injured persons could have been caused by the knife seized from the possession of the appellant.
It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that although in the charge which was framed by the Trial Court, it is mentioned that charge under Section 307 of IPC is being levelled against him for causing injury to Ram Babu as well as Smt. Sheela Devi but the charge under Section 307 of IPC was not framed on two counts, therefore, it is 9 Cr.A. No. 170 of 2007 submitted that the Trial Court should not have convicted the appellant under Section 324 of IPC for causing simple injury to Smt. Sheela Devi as no charge was framed for the said offence.
It is well established principle of law that where a charge is sufficient to indicate the offence for which the accused was being tried then merely because there is some vagueness in the charge would not vitiate the proceedings. The appellant had faced the trial knowing fully the allegations which were made against him.
It is next contended by the counsel for the appellant that undisputedly the appellant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of incident, therefore, he was not in a position to understand the things.
It is not the case of the appellant that he was forced by any one to consume liquor. If the appellant has voluntarily consumed the liquor then he cannot take advantage of Section 85 of IPC. Thus, it is apparent that the appellant had caused injury to Ram Babu (P.W.1) which was dangerous to his life and caused simple injury to his mother Smt. Sheela Devi and accordingly the appellant is held guilt of offence under Section 307 of IPC and under Section 324 of IPC. The Trial Court has also convicted the appellant for the abovementioned offence and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC by the Trial Court is affirmed.
So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the appellant was awarded a rigorous imprisonment of seven years and a fine of Rs.500/- with default imprisonment for offence under Section 307 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment of one year for offence under Section 324 of IPC.
From the record, it is clear that the appellant was 10 Cr.A. No. 170 of 2007 never released on bail during the trial. He was arrested on 05.09.2005. In this appeal also, the appellant did not move any application under Section 389 of CrPC for suspension of sentence. Thus, it is clear that the appellant must have been released after undergoing the jail sentence so imposed by the Trial Court.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. The judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court is hereby affirmed. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) Judge (ra)