Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yugal Kishor vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE V.P.S.CHAUHAN
Cr.R.No.2668/2019
Yugal Kishor and others
Vs.
State of M.P.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Jubin Prasad, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
O R D E R
(02/07/2019) The applicants have filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20/05/2019 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Criminal Appeal No.140/2017 whereby learned appellate Court affirmed the judgment 2 of conviction under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI along with fine of Rs.1250/- with default stipulation passed by learned JMFC, Balaghat in Criminal Case No.941/2012 vide judgment dated 14/09/2017.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision , in short, are that victim Nandkishor (PW-1) and applicant No.4- Dasaram was having rivalry on the basis of dissolution of marriage of their daughter and son. On 10/04/2012 there was a quarrel between Dasaram and Nandkishor and on the same day when Nandkishor was sitting in the hotel in Village Mohjhari, all the applicants came there having a chain, iron rod and uttered filthy words and started beating Nandkishor and also threatened to kill him. Nandkishor sustained injuries in eye, leg and hand. This incident witnessed by Gorelal Narwale (PW-3), Sanju Paradhi (PW-5), Krishna Avsare (PW-6), Dadu Nagtode (PW-2) and Munna Nagtode (PW-4). Victim-Nandkishor lodged FIR (Ex.P/1) on the same 3 day at Police Station, Langi, Crime No.63/2012 had been registered against each applicant and during medical examination, it was found that victim sustained grievous injuries. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under sections 294, 325, 506-B read with Section 34 of IPC was filed against the applicants. Trial Court framed the charges against the applicants. Each applicant abjured their guilt.
3. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence, on appreciation of evidence and hearing learned counsel for both the parties delivered judgment on 14/09/2017 thereby acquitted each applicant of the charge under Sections 294, 506 Part II of IPC, however, convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced each applicant to undergo one year RI along with fine of Rs.1250/-, in default of payment of fine further undergo to four months RI. Against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the applicants 4 preferred an appeal registered as Criminal Appeal No.140/2017. The appellate Court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 20/05/2019 and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
4. Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and affirmation by the appellate Court, the applicants have filed this revision on the ground that learned both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence properly. There are material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond doubt against the applicants. There are much contradictions in the statement. No ingredient of the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC is made out against the applicants. There was previous enmity between the parties. On account of that enmity, complainant falsely implicated the applicants, therefore, prays to set aside 5 the conviction and sentence and in addition also prays that learned Courts below should provide the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the applicants. Learned trial Court failed to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the applicants.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State, on the other hand, while opposing the aforesaid prayer submits that there is sufficient material available against the applicant. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant on wrong grounds, therefore, prays for dismissal of the criminal revision.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of Criminal Case No.941/2012 in which the statement of the witnesses were recorded before the trial Court.
7. In the examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the applicant-Dasaram took a defence that before this incident Nandkishor beat him and he sustained injuries on his person and also lodged a report against 6 complainant-Nandkishor. Taking revenge Nandkishor has falsely implicated the applicants and other applicants took defence that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant. Recorded the evidence of P.L. Aatake, Head Constable posted at Police Station Lanji to substantiate that report has been lodged against the complainant.
8. Perused the statement of victim as well as FIR (Ex.P/1) lodged by Nandkishor (PW-1). The date and time of the incident reflected from FIR (Ex.P/1) was 10/04/2012 at 6.30 p.m. The applicants have not filed copy of FIR in their defence, but, perused the statement of P.L. Aatake, Head Constable produced in defence. This witness stated that on 10/04/2012 Dasaram lodged a report registered in Rojnamcha Sanha. Copy of Rojnamcha Sanha is annexed as Ex.D/2-C. This witness also stated that after recording information in Rojnamcha Sanha, sent Dasaram C.H.C., Lanji for medical examination.
7
9. On perusal of the copy of Rojnamcha Sanha, it is reflected that the incident happened on 10/04/2012 at 6.00 p.m. and it is mentioned in Ex.D/2 that Nandkishor-complainant of this case, on the dispute of dissolution of marriage, beat Dasaram. As per the statement of Nandkishor and FIR (Ex.P/1), after this incident all the applicants with a common intention gathered on the spot carrying weapon with them and assaulted on the complainant-Nandkishor. The defence of the applicants also substantiate the cause of assaulting on Nandkishor. As per Ex.P/1 and the statement of medical expert Dr. Sujata Gedam who examined the injuries of the present complainant- Nandkishor, this witness found five injuries on the body of the complainant and some injuries may be grievous, sent complainant for x-ray to District Hospital, Balaghat. Dr. D.K. Rawat (PW-8) posted at District Hospital, Balaghat examined complainant and found that tibia and fibula bone of the right leg fractured and 8 ulna bone of the right hand was also found fractured. Examination report submitted by Dr. Sujata Gedam (PW-7) is Ex.P/5 and opinion of x-ray report of Dr. D.K. Rawat (PW-8) is Ex.P/8. The evidence shows that complainant-Nandkishor sustained grievous injuries in the same incident. Statement of complainant- Nandkishor is supported by the FIR as well as medical report. He is the victim whose present could not be doubted on the spot. He categorically stated the name of the applicants. Nandkishor sustained five injuries on different-different parts of his body, that also indicates that he was beaten by more than one person.
10. So far as the factum of appreciation of evidence is concerned, the revisional Court is having a limited scope to appreciate the evidence. There is sufficient evidence available on record that the applicants voluntarily gathered together with a common intention to beat complainant-Nandkishor. Thus, this Court finds 9 that learned Courts below did not commit any error in convicting the applicants under Section 325/34 of IPC.
11. So far as sentence is concerned, learned Govt. Advocate submits that Courts below awarded one year RI along with fine of Rs.1,250/- which is not on higher side and is a reasonable punishment, hence, there is no need to interfere in the quantum of sentence.
12. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Courts below did not extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daljit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2006 SAR (Criminal) 631. In that Hon'ble Apex Court directed the trial Court to consider the application filed by the appellants under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.
13. In the present case, all the applicants gathered with a common intention on the basis of previous fight with an iron rod and other weapons and surrounded the 10 complainant and inflicted injuries by iron rod, chain and stick. In this situation, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and also of the opinion that learned Courts below have not committed any error in not extending the benefit of Probation of Officers Act. The applicants are in jail since the date of judgment of the appellate Court i.e. 20th May, 2019 which shows that the applicants have undergone more than one month in custody and also deposited the fine amount of Rs.1,250/-. This Court considered the grievous injuries of the victim and also considered the cause of incident as well as the fact that the applicants are the first offender not having any criminal antecedent in past, thus, this Court is of the view that this sentence should be reduced to minimum three months Simple Imprisonment.
14. In light of the aforesaid discussions, this revision is partly allowed. The conviction passed by both the Courts below under Section 325/34 of IPC is hereby 11 affirmed, however, so far the imprisonment of one year RI is concerned, it is reduced to three months Simple Imprisonment and the fine amount as imposed by the Courts below upon the applicants shall remain unchanged with default stipulation.
15. Let copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance.
(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge ts Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH Date: 2019.07.03 17:31:41 +05'30'