Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 502 (MP)

Amolin Bai v. State of M. P.

2000-05-09

S.P.KHARE

body2000
1. The appellants have been convicted under sections 148 and 307/149 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and five years respectively. They have also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each for the first offence and Rs. 1,000/- each for the second offence. 2. It is no longer in dispute that on 11.5.1992 at about 7.00 p.m. an incident did take place in village Darri in which Mahendra Kumar Tiwari (PW-2) sustained injuries. He lodged the report on the same day at 10.10 p.m. at the police station which is at a distance of eight kilometers from the place of occurrence. 3. Mahendra Kumar Tiwari (PW-2), who is the victim of the offence, has deposed that he was returning to his house after taking bath in the village pond. Accused Chhatteram dealt an axe blow on his head when he reached near the Neem tree. He has further deposed that accused Dara Singh and Virendra caught-hold of him and accused Chhatteram again dealt an axe blow on his head. This second blow caused the injury on the left parietal region. The first blow had its impact on the middle of the skull. Accused Hetram attacked him with a knife and caused injury on the left side of his neck. Accused Amolin Bai dealt a Lathi blow on his back. The motive for this crime is said to be that the accused persons were asserting a right of way from his field in which the paddy crop was standing. 4. Manish Tiwari (PW-3) is the nephew and Rakesh Tiwari (PW-5) is brother of the complainant. They have corroborated his evidence. Mahadev (PW-4) who was said to be an eye witness has been declared hostile. 5. Dr. J. Singh (PW-8) has deposed that on 11.5.1992 at 10:30 p.m. he had examined Mahendra Kumar Tiwari (PW-1) and found nine injuries on his body as per his report (Ex.P/6). Out of these injuries, two have been described as incised wounds and one as lacerated wound. The first incised wound was over middle of the forehead 10 cm x 0.7 cm x 0.7 cm. The blood was coming out from this injury. The second incised wound was on the left side of the neck. It was 3 cm x 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm. The lacerated wound was on the left side of the head. The first incised wound was over middle of the forehead 10 cm x 0.7 cm x 0.7 cm. The blood was coming out from this injury. The second incised wound was on the left side of the neck. It was 3 cm x 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm. The lacerated wound was on the left side of the head. Its size was 11 cm x 1.4 cm x 1.2 cm. According to the opinion of the doctor the injuries on the head were of grievous nature. 6. The defence of the accused persons appears to be that Mahendra Kumar Tiwari (PW-1) was himself armed with axe and in the course of grappling during the incident he sustained injuries by his own axe. This defence version does not appear to be at all plausible. 7. So far as appellants Hetram and Chhatteram are concerned it has been proved that they have voluntarily caused incised wounds to Mahendra Kumar Tiwari (PW-1). Appellant Chhatteram dealt repeated blows on the head of the complainant causing severe injuries. His case is squarely covered by section 307 IPC. The weapon which has been used by appellant Chhatteram, part of the body on which he inflicted the injuries and the size and nature of the injuries give a clear indication that appellant Chhatteram attempted to commit murder of Mahendra Kumar Tiwari (PW-1). His conviction under section 307 IPC is unassailable. Accused Hetram has caused only one injury by a knife to Mahendra Kumar Tiwari (PW-1). The act of accused Hetram is covered by section 324 IPC. Therefore, his conviction is altered from section 307/149 to section 324 IPC. So far as appellants Amolin Bai, Dara Singh and Virendra are concerned, the evidence adduced by the prosecution against them is not of definite and precise character. They do not appear to have caused any injury to the complainant. Therefore, conviction of these appellants under sections 148 and 307/149 IPC are set aside. The conviction of appellants Chhatteram and Hetram under section 148 IPC is also set aside. So far as the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed upon appellant Chhatteram is concerned, that cannot be said to be excessive. Appellant Hetram is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC. The conviction and sentence of appellants Amolin Bai, Dara Singh and Virendra are set aside. Thus, this appeal is partly allowed.