Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 523 (MP)

DEVI SINGH v. STATE OF M. P.

2003-04-09

S.K.PANDE

body2003
S. K. PANDE, J. ( 1 ) JMFC, Sehore vide judgment dated 20/10/1993 in Cr. Case No. 552/91 convicted the applicant-accused persons under Section 325/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to suffer SI for a period of one month in Criminal Appeal No. 123/93 arising out of the said judgment. ASJ, Sehore vide judgment dated 26/5/1994 maintaining the conviction directed the applicant-accused persons to undergo RI for a period of six months and also to pay fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to suffer SI for a period of one month under Section 325/34, Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) THIS revision under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the aforesaid judgment dated 26/5/1994 passed by ASJ, Sehore. ( 3 ) FACTS in brief are on 23/3/1991, Devkaran was assaulted by the applicants-accused Devi Singh and Dev Singh on the disputed land at village Shahpura PS Ichhawar, District Sehore Applicants- accused Dev Singh and Devi Singh were armed with Farsi and Vallam. They inflicted injuries to the complainant Dev Karan who was taken to the Police Station by Udai Singh. Report (Ex. P1) was lodged and Dev Karan was sent for the medical examination. As per Medical Report (Ex. P 10) lacerated wounds alongwith fractures of bones on both the hands were found. Accordingly, the applicants-accused persons were charge sheeted under Section 325/34, Indian Penal Code relying upon the statement of P. W. 2 Dev Karan, the MFC recorded finding that P. W. 2 Dev Karan was beaten by the applicants-accused persons with farsi and vallam. Accordingly, they were convicted under Section 325/34, Indian Penal Code. In Criminal Appeal No. 123/93, the aforesaid finding was maintained however the applicants accused were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer SI for a period of one month. It is argued in this revision petition that the courts below have over looked the facts that P. W. 2 Dev Karan unlawfully entered in the field in possession of the applicants accused persons and tried to remove the crops. Accordingly right of private defence was available to the accused applicants persons and that the accused-applicant Devi Singh had not inflicted any injury to the complainant Dev Karan. Accordingly right of private defence was available to the accused applicants persons and that the accused-applicant Devi Singh had not inflicted any injury to the complainant Dev Karan. ( 4 ) P. W 10 Dr. G. C. Joshi on examining Devkaran found lacerated wounds on his body. No injury by sharp edged weapon has been inflicted to him. P. W. 12 Dr. A. Bose states that on both the hands the bones were fractured. In the injuries were grievous in nature as per report (Ex. P 10 ). therefore it has been proved that Dev Karan sustained the aforesaid lacerated wounds as well as fractures on his hands. P. W. 2 Dev Karan has stated that Devi Singh was having an iron rod in his hands and has inflicted injuries on his head. Thereafter he became unconscious. P. W. 1 Udai Singh has stated that the incident was not witnessed by him as he arrived at the spot subsequently and taken Dev Singh to the Police Station. P. W. 2 Dev Karan has not stated that applicant accused Devi Singh also inflicted injuries to him by means of Farsi and that as per the statement of P. W. 10 Dr. G. C. Joshi. P. W. 12 Dr. A. Bose there was no injury to Dev Karan, which could have been inflicted by sharp cutting weapon. Therefore, it is clear that no injury to the injured Dev Karan was inflicted by Devi Singh. Dev Singh alone has beaten him by iron rod. ( 5 ) P. W. 2 Dev Karan in cross-examination in para 5 has stated that crop was sown by applicants- accused persons in the disputed field. Applicants-accused persons asked him not to remove crops. P. W. 2 Dev Karan has stated that he was in the field where the applicants-accused have sown crops. This is also stated by P. W. 5 Jeevan Singh in his cross-examination. Accordingly it is evident that on the disputed land the crop was sown by the applicants-accused persons and P. W. 2 Dev Karan was trying to remove the crop. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances the applicants-accused persons had right of private defence. In this context the Judgment reported in Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana, has been cited. Accordingly it is evident that on the disputed land the crop was sown by the applicants-accused persons and P. W. 2 Dev Karan was trying to remove the crop. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances the applicants-accused persons had right of private defence. In this context the Judgment reported in Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana, has been cited. It is stated that under Section 104, Indian Penal Code plea of private defence of property in causing the grievous hurt to Dev Karan was available to the accused applicants persons. Applicants-accused are entitled to protection of right of private defence of property under Section 104, Indian Penal Code. Ignoring the facts aforesaid emerging from the statements of P. W. 2 Dev Karan. P. W. 5 Jeevan Singh recording of conviction under Section 325/34, Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be proper. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, revision is allowed. Accused-applicants, are acquitted of the charge under Section 325/34. Indian Penal Code and the sentences awarded by ASJ in Criminal Appeal No. 123/93 are set aside. Bail bonds are cancelled. Revision allowed. .