Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 227 (MP)

Chunnilal v. State of M. P.

2001-03-08

R.B.DIXIT

body2001
JUDGMENT Feeling aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction dated 14.8.1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 68/96 of First Additional Judge to Sessions Judge, Vidisha thereby convicted appellant under section 307, IPC and sentenced him to three years' RI and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, appellant has come up in appeal seeking redress praying for setting aside the aforesaid sentence and conviction. The facts giving rise to the prosecution of the appellant shorn of details lie in a narrow compass. On 23.9.1994 at about 9.30 a.m. when complainant Jitendra Singh was taking to task his younger brother, appellant and co-accused Manohar Lal intervened. Appellant assaulted the complainant with spear and Manohar with lathi. Mother of complainant intervened. He lodged police report (Ex. P-3) at Police Station Sironj. Complainant was referred for medical examination of his injuries and Dr. S.A. Thakur (PW 1), who examined him, found, one incised wound 3" x 1/2" x 1/2" on frontal region of-skull and an abrasion 2" x 1/4" on left leg, Injury No.1 of the skull was caused by hard and sharp object. The learned counsel of the appellant has submitted that the doctor has not opined that this injury was, however, grievous or dangerous to life. In the circumstances, it was a 'simple injury without any intention to cause death. The learned counsel of the appellant has further contended that injury of the skull is not possible by spear. Although in this case the weapon of offence has not been seized or produced, but from the evidence of complainant, it can be gathered that it was not a pointed object but fitted with an iron tip of trangular in shape. In such a situation, it is possible that the injury indicated in the medical report might have been caused with a weapon as detailed by the complainant in his cross-examination. Except complainant, no other prosecution witness has corroborated the prosecution story. However, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the complainant, from whose evidence it is established that appellant had caused injury by spear on his head. However, in absence of intention to cause death, the offence established against the appellant is not under section 307 or 326 IPC but it is falling under the category of an offence under section 324 IPC. However, in absence of intention to cause death, the offence established against the appellant is not under section 307 or 326 IPC but it is falling under the category of an offence under section 324 IPC. It is not disputed that co-accused was acquitted because of compromise with the complainant from the , offence under section 323 read with section 34 IPC by the trial Court on 19.7.1996 and this appellant was also acquitted of the offence under section 323 read with section 34 IPC. However, other part of the compromise was not allowed as the offence with which the appellant was, charged under section 307 IPC was not compoundable. It has, been held in case of San jay Kumar v. State of M.P. reported " in 1994 (Cri.) 586 that in order to bring the case within the ambit of section 307, it must be shown that the accused acted with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder. That is, intention or knowledge to commit murder must exist. In the present case, the injury was only skin deep. In the circumstances under which the incident occurred would preclude any inference that the assault was launched with intent to murder. In the circumstances, the case would fall within the scope of section 324 IPC but since the parties had entered into compromise, lenient view has to be adopted by the Court. In another decision of the Apex Court in case of Ram Pujan v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1973 CAR 304 (SC), it was held that the fact of compromise can be taken into consideration in awarding the sentence. In the present case, appellant has already undergone 8 days in judicial custody, in the circumstances, it would be sufficient to convict the appellant with the fine imposed by the trial Court. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 307 IPC is set aside, instead he is held guilty under section 324 IPC and sentenced with the sentence already undergone and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default, three months' RI.