Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1273 (MP)

Shaitan Singh v. State of M. P.

2003-11-20

SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2003
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the accused person challenging judgment dated 29.4.1999 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial No. 320/96, whereby the Sessions Court has convicted the appellants for committing offence under sections 333/34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. The prosecution story is that PW 3 Bhanu Prakash Singh was a Forest Guard in the year 1996. On 1.6.1996 he had seen the accused persons taking wood in bullock cart. He stopped the bullock and asked the accused persons to follow the police station, due to which the accused persons assaulted him. The appellant No. 1 Shaitan Singh gave an axe blow on the head of Bhanu Prakash Singh. However, he put his hand to prevent the blow, which resulted in dislocation in first metacarpal on the right hand. The other accused persons also assaulted him with lathi, kicks and fists, thereby as many as 12 injuries on the body of the injured. Out of which one is dislocation of first metacarpal, while the other injuries are simple in nature. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the offence under section 333 IPC is not made out, as the prosecution has not led any evidence to show that Bhanu Prakash Singh was assaulted while discharging his official duties. Learned counsel for the appellants invited my attention to the statement of Bhanu Prakash Singh (PW 3). In his entire evidence, he has not stated that the accused persons were knowing him prior to the incident or that he told the accused persons that he is a Government Servant and discharging his official duties. He has not stated in his statement that he had disclosed his identity to the accused persons before or at the time of incident. Considering these facts, it is clear that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused persons were knowing that Bhanu Prakash Singh was a Government Servant and was discharging his official duties at the time of incident. In view of this fact, it cannot be said that the accused persons have caused grievous hurt to Bhanu Prakash Singh to deter him from his public duty. In such circumstances, offence under sections 333 and 342 IPC is not made out. In view of this fact, it cannot be said that the accused persons have caused grievous hurt to Bhanu Prakash Singh to deter him from his public duty. In such circumstances, offence under sections 333 and 342 IPC is not made out. The trial Court has acquitted the accused persons for committing offence under section 342 IPC. From the statement of doctor, the injuries said to be caused to said Bhanu Prakash Singh are medically corroborated and therefore it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons have caused injuries to the said Bhanu Prakash Singh. The injuries are fully corroborated by medical evidence. In such circumstances, even though the offence under section 333/34 is not made out, and the accused persons can be convicted under section 326/34 IPC. On the question of sentence, counsel for the appellants urged that all the accused persons have already undergone sentence for a period of five days. They have also deposited the fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. According to him, there is nothing on record to show that the accused persons were involved in some previous offence. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment deserves to be set aside. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the appellants have already faced trial for nearly more than seven years. They have already undergone seven days's imprisonment. They have not misused their bail. Considering all these facts, it will not be in the interest of justice to send the accused persons to jail after lapse of long time. In such circumstances, I sentence the accused for the sentence already undergone by them. Considering the fact, the appellants are found guilty for an offence, the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- each. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount of fine is enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- each.