Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1304 (MP)

Shesh Rao v. State of M. P.

2003-11-29

A.K.MISHRA

body2003
JUDGMENT In this appeal the accused-appellant challenged the conviction for offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of fine further imprisonment of 6 months RI imposed by trial Court, which has been assailed in the instant appeal. As per prosecution case an incident took place on 2.8.1998. The accused-appellant had caused injuries to injured Dhannu (PW 2). It is also the prosecution case that there was dispute between accused-appellant and injured Dhannu (PW 2) over temporary shade, which was laid by the injured Dhannu. Accused-appellant Shesh Rao claimed it was laid over his land. On the date of incident at about 8.00 p.m. accused-appellant asked Dhannu to remove his temporary shade. An exchange of hot words and abuse took place and prosecution alleged that accused-appellant inflicted a knife blow on abdominal portion of Dhannu (PW 2). Incident was witnessed by Dasri Bai (PW 4), Ram Rao Village Kotwar (PW 1) was informed. Dhannu was taken to the Hospital, given treatment. One injury caused by sharp edged weapon was found in abdominal portion in medical report (P-7) of injured Dhannu. Injury was found to be of grievous nature and was caused within 12 hours of the examination. Incised wound, two inches deep was found. Surgery was performed. As per information memo (P-2) furnished by the accused, a Knife was seized as per Seizure Memo (P-3.) Accused abjured the guilt and contended that he has been falsely implicated and injured Dhannu had beaten Urmila with the help of stick. Urmila (PW 1), sister of accused has been examined in defence. Prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses. In defence Urmila (DW 1) and Thengu (DW 2) were examined. Shri Pranay Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has submitted that victim was holding stick in his hand and inflicted injury over the head of sister of the accused-appellant. Urmila (DW 1) was seriously injured and was confined to Hospital for about 3 months. Injury caused by complainant Dhannu over head of Urmila has not been explained. Thus, the accused was well within his rights to exercise the right of defence of person. Thus, conviction and sentence imposed is bad in law. He has further submitted that except the statement of Dhannu (PW 2), there is no other evidence to sustain the conviction. Injury caused by complainant Dhannu over head of Urmila has not been explained. Thus, the accused was well within his rights to exercise the right of defence of person. Thus, conviction and sentence imposed is bad in law. He has further submitted that except the statement of Dhannu (PW 2), there is no other evidence to sustain the conviction. Dasri' Bai (PW 4) has admitted that she did not witness the incident and on the contrary it is admitted that injury was caused by her husband Dhannu with the help of stick over the head of Urmila. He has further submitted that Dhannu had admitted that Urmila remained in Hospital owing to the injury for about 3 months for the purpose of treatment. He has further submitted that Dhannu was in badly drunk condition and had laid temporary shade over the land, which was owned by the accused-appellant and the true story has not been unfolded by the prosecution. Hence, conviction and sentence imposed deserves to be set aside. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned P.L. appearing for the State has supported the conviction and sentence imposed. He has further submitted that facts have been properly appreciated and no interference is called for in the conviction and sentence imposed. Ram Rao (PW 1) has not supported the prosecution case. We are left with the statement of Dhannu (PW 2) and Dasri Bai (PW 4). Dhannu (PW 2), injured person has stated that accused abused him and was asking to remove the temporary shade laid by him and thereafter had inflicted injury with the help of knife. It has been further stated that thereafter Thengu had beaten him with the help of fist and he fell down. A First Information Report (P-l) was lodged. He has claimed ownership of disputed land. Suggestion was put that there was altercation of the injured Dhannu (PW 2) with Ms. Urmila though he has denied suggestion that he inflicted any injury on the head of Urmila. However, this fact has been admitted that injury was inflicted by Dhannu, by Dasri Bai (PW 4) wife of Dhannu. Dasri Bai (PW 4) has clearly deposed in Para 6 of her deposition that stick injury was inflicted by her husband, as Urmila was standing nearby. Further, a close scrutiny of the deposition of Dasri Bai indicates that accused and complainant Dhannu scuffled with each other. Dasri Bai (PW 4) has clearly deposed in Para 6 of her deposition that stick injury was inflicted by her husband, as Urmila was standing nearby. Further, a close scrutiny of the deposition of Dasri Bai indicates that accused and complainant Dhannu scuffled with each other. Both had scuffled and beaten each other, is the statement of Dasri Bai (PW 4) in Para 1 and it is also stated by Dhannu (PW 2) in Para 16 of his deposition that Urmila remained in Multai Hospital for about 3 months. Thus, it is clear that an altercation had taken place and Urmila (DW 1) has also suffered injury at the time of incident itself caused by complainant Dhannu (PW 2). True it is that injury was caused to Dhannu (PW 2) with the help of a knife by the accused-appellant in the course of altercation. In the circumstances of the case, it is clear that there was quarrel between the complainant as well as accused-appellant. Complainant Dhannu (PW 2) has suffered an injury, which was inflicted with the help of a knife by the accused-appellant and complainant had inflicted injury over Urmila (DW 1) with the help of stick, injury was suffered by her on the head. In the circumstances of the case, in my opinion the intention of accused-appellant was not to cause death. Thus, it is proper to convict the appellant for the offence under section 326 of IPC and it is clear that appellant has already undergone sentence of about 22 months, which is held to be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case. Resultantly, appeal is partly allowed. Appellant is convicted for offence under section 326 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone.