Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 390 (MP)

Lalit Jatav v. State of M. P.

2003-03-07

P.C.AGARWAL

body2003
JUDGMENT Appellant stands convicted under Section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Code for short) and section 25 (1 b) (b) of the Arms' Act (Act for short) and sentenced to undergo RI. for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to further SI for 3 months, and RI for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- and) in default to Further undergo SI for 3 months. Substantive sentences 'are 'ordered to run concurrently. Appellant was arrested on 16.7.2000. He was released on bail in trial Court on 21.1.2001. He was sent to jail on 3.10.2002 on conviction and is in jail since then. However, he has not deposited the fine amount. As per FIR (Ex. P/15), co-accused Gautam with three of his companions, all armed with knives, had been to the house of Dharmendra Singh (PW 1). Co-accused Gautam stabbed Dharmendra Singh (PW 1) causing an injury in his abdomen. Clearly the appellant was not named in FIR. In evidence, Dharmendra Singh (PW 1), Surendra Singh. Raghuvanshi (PW 5) have claimed that the appellant had stabbed Dharmendra Singh (PW 1) injuring him in chest. Smt. Krishna Bai Raghuvanshi (PW 2), mother of Dharmendra Singh (PW 1) had merely named the co-accused persons but she did not name the appellant. She was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor and confronted with her previous statement 'A' to 'A' part of Ex. P-1 was denied by her. It is noteworthy that Doctor P.K. Mishra (PW 4) medically examined Dharmendra Singh (PW 1) and noted the following injury on his person vide Ex. P-3 : Incised wound over left side anterior aspect of the abdomen 1.5x 0.7cm.x depth not measured. Omentum was coming out from the wound. Blood was oozing from the wound. LV. line started. For this injury, DNS advised, X-ray of abdomen. Such injury was caused by some sharp cutting object within six hours. Definitely, no other injury on his person, much less on chest of Dharmendra Singh (PW 1), was proved. Certainly this injury could be attributed to co-accused Gautam only who was named in FIR and by Dharmendra Singh (PW 1) as well as Surendra Singh Raghuvanshi (PW 5), as the authour of the injury in the abdomen of Dharmendra Singh (PW 1). Certainly this injury could be attributed to co-accused Gautam only who was named in FIR and by Dharmendra Singh (PW 1) as well as Surendra Singh Raghuvanshi (PW 5), as the authour of the injury in the abdomen of Dharmendra Singh (PW 1). Certainly, it cannot be assumed that the appellant had also stabbed at the same place and only one injury was caused out of two strokes of stabbing. Actually, such has not been the case of the prosecution also. In view of the conflict between medical evidence and the oral evidence, certainly the participation of the appellant in the offence has become highly suspicious. The appellant has pleaded not guilty. On this evidence, he could not have, been convicted u/s 324 of the Code. Yaduveer Singh Tomar (PW 12), ASI has recovered a knife which was spring-operated, blade of which was 8 digits and its handle was 9 digits. It was recovered from the house of appellant. Certainly the carriage of such a knife in public place might have amounted to an offence u/s 25(1b)(b) of the Act, but recovery of such knife from the house of the appellant does not amount to such an offence. As the presence of the appellant at the time of occurrence on spot has not been proved, this cannot also be held that he was having this knife at the time of occurrence. As such, on that basis also the appellant could not be convicted for the said offence. Thus, the appeal on merits deserves to be allowed. The same is allowed. The conviction and the sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside. No fine amount is paid. The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside.