Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 324 in Dinesh Kumar & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 22 September, 2022Matching Fragments
Appellant of the IPC no.1 324 read with Two years S.I. for three Rs.500/- 34 of the IPC R.I. months. Dinesh 323 r/w 34 of One year S.I. for one Rs.200/- the IPC R.I. month. 304 Part-II Five years Rs.1000/ S.I. for six read with 34 Appellant R.I. - months. no.2 of the IPC Two years S.I. for three 324 of the IPC Rs.500/- R.I. months. Ram Naresh 323 r/w 34 of One year S.I. for one Rs.200/- the IPC R.I. month. Co-accused 304 Part-II Five years Rs.1000/ S.I. for six Shiv Prasad read with 34 R.I. - months. of the IPC 324 read with Two years Rs.500/- S.I. for three 34 of the IPC R.I. months. 323 r/w 34 of One year S.I. for one Rs.200/- the IPC R.I. month.
22) and also seized one knife from the possession of appellant no.1 Dinesh, one stick from the possession of co-accused Shiv Prasad and prepared seizure memos (Ex.P-15 and P-16) and after investigation filed the charge sheet before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mauganj. On that charge sheet, Criminal Case no.116/1989 was registered. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mauganj committed the case to the court of Session. On that, ST no.173/1990 was registered. Learned Ist ASJ, Rewa framed the charge against appellants Dinesh and Ramnaresh and co- accused Shiv Prasad, Hardayal and Sualal @ Rajmani for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149, 324/149 and in alternate 324 of the IPC and 323/149 in alternate 323 of the IPC and tried the case. However, the appellants and co-accused persons abjured their guilt and took the defence that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case. After trial, learned trial Court acquitted the co- accused Sualal and Hardayal from all the charges and only found appellants Dinesh Kumar, Ram Naresh and co-accused Shiv Prasad guilty for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by that judgment, appellants filed this appeal.
12. But from the prosecution evidence as discussed above, it is proved that in the incident appellants assaulted Ramgopal, due to which he sustained injuries. Injured Daya Shankar Mishra (PW8) and Yashoda (PW9) have stated that at the time of the incident, appellant no.2 Ram Naresh was armed with a spear and he used it in the incident. Dr. Chandrika Prasad Dwivedi (PW1), who examined Ramgopal immediately after the incident has stated that on 25/10/1988 at 10 a.m. he had conducted medical examination of Ramgopal in which as many as 24 external injuries were found on his body, out of which injury numbers four and five were inflicted by hard & sharp object. So appellant no.2 Ramnaresh is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 and appellant no.1 Dinesh is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 324 read with 34 of IPC of assaulting Ramgopal. The Conviction of appellant no.1 Dinesh under Section 324 read with 34 and 323 of IPC and appellant no.2 Ramnaresh under Section 324 and 323 IPC to assault other injured Sampat Kumar Mishra (PW-7), Daya Shankar Mishra (PW8) and Yashoda (PW-9) are hereby affirmed.
17. So, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence of appellants under Section 304 part II read with 34 of IPC is hereby set aside and instead appellant no.2 Ramnaresh is found guilty of assaulting Ramgopal for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and appellant no.1 Dinesh is found guilty of assault on Ramgopal under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In case of default in payment of the fine, they will suffer further imprisonment for four months. The conviction and sentence of appellant no.1 Dinesh under Sections 324 read with 34 and 323 of IPC and appellant no.2 Ramnaresh under Sections 324 and 323 IPC of assaulting other injured Sampat Kumar Mishra (PW-7), Daya Shankar Mishra (PW-8) and Yashoda are hereby affirmed. All the jail sentences of the appellants shall run concurrently. The period already undergone shall be set off from the period of substantive jail sentences.