Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 329 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Sadri Prasad

2003-02-25

AJIT SINGH, BHAWANI SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the acquittal of accused by the trial Court vide judgment dated September 8, 1989, in Sessions Trial No.83/1987. Leave has been granted against Badriprasad, Ravindra Kumar and Mahesh only. Therefore, the matter is to be examined with this background. Precisely, the prosecution case is that on 10.2.1987, at 8.15 a.m., in Civil Ward No.2 Damoh, accused, armed with sword, haria, lathi, rod and stones, assaulted complainants Umashanker, Gayaprasad, Rakesh, Kamlabai and Ku. Anju as a result of which the complainants suffered injuries on their bodies. In case of Gayaprasad, injuries are stated to be serious, while in case of others, they are simple in nature. Complainants are related to each other and their houses adjoin each other. The incident took place on 10.2.1987, at about 8.15 a.m. and report Ex. P-l was lodged the same day at 8.45 a.m. by Umashanker (PW 1). After investigation, medical examination of the complainants and the accused, recording of evidence and carrying out further investigation, accused were prosecuted for offences u/s 148/307 and 149/294 of the IPC. Accused have denied commission of the offences. Prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Accused, except for explaining the charges in their examination u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, did not produce any witness in defence. The trial Court has acquitted the accused by the impugned judgment on the ground that material prosecution witnesses have made material contradictions in their statements and that the accused also received injuries in the incident, but prosecution did not explain the injuries. Shri Shailendra Gangrade, learned Public Prosecutor, took us through the evidence in the case to demostrate that accused have committed the offences, caused injuries to as many as 5 persons and grievous injuries to Gayaprasad, but the trial Court has acquitted them without justification. Examination of the matter demonstrates that parties are related to each other and living in adjacent houses. How the quarrel took place has not been clearly pointed out by the prosecution. Accused pleaded right of private defence which is not pleaded by the complainants. It may be that complainants received injuries on their person, but the same has happened to the accused also. It may be true that Gayaprasad received grievous injuries, but others have also received simple injuries as per Dr. Laxman Das (PW 8). Accused pleaded right of private defence which is not pleaded by the complainants. It may be that complainants received injuries on their person, but the same has happened to the accused also. It may be true that Gayaprasad received grievous injuries, but others have also received simple injuries as per Dr. Laxman Das (PW 8). So far as accused are concerned, Badriprasad had received 2 injuries, Ravindra Kumar 3 injuries and Mahesh 2 injuries, which may be of simple nature, but the fact remains that accused party received 8 injuries. How they received them has not been explained by the prosecution. Further, statements of prosecution witnesses disclose that on material aspects of the case, they have made contradictory statements. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial Court on this aspect is quite reasonable and justified. Similar is our view with regard to prosecution failing to explain the injuries on the person of the accused who had also lodged counter case against the complainants u/s 341, 394 and 294 of the IPC pending trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh, as per para 13 of the impugned judgment. In his explanation, Mahesh has stated that Gayaprasad asked him to vacate the Chat shop and when he refused to do so, he was beaten by Gayaprasad and Umashanker. Seeing this, Badriprasad, Ravindra Kumar and his servant Raju came there. Badriprasad had lathi, Ravindra Kumar a small sword and Raju a ballam. Gayaprasad, Umashanker and Rakesh attacked Badriprasad and Ravindra Kumar, therefore, they inflicted injuries in exercise of right of private defence. In the 'absence of prosecution pointing out how exactly the quarrel took place, it cannot be said that the explanation of Mahesh is unjustified. It can be gathered from the evidence that both parties had scuffled with each other and inflicted injuries to each other. In such a quarrel, it is difficult to measure the likely impact of the blow. It is well settled that where a party is exercising right of private defence, the blows given by it cannot be measured in golden scales, since effort is to disarm the adversary and save itself. A perusal of the impugned judgment demonstrates that the trial Court has considered the matter carefully. Evidence has been considered and analysed properly before conclusion was drawn. A perusal of the impugned judgment demonstrates that the trial Court has considered the matter carefully. Evidence has been considered and analysed properly before conclusion was drawn. Therefore, it cannot be said that approach of the trial Court is grossly unreasonable and palpably wrong calling for interference by the appellate Court which does not have the occasion to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and other related facts of the case. Consequently, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.