Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 531 (MP)

Devi Singh v. State of M. P.

2003-04-09

S.K.PANDE

body2003
JUDGMENT JMFC, Sehore vide judgment dated 20.10.1993 in Cr. Case No. 552/91 convicted the applicant/accused persons under section 325/34 IPC 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 26.5.94 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 IPC. This revision under section 397 of CrPC is directed against the aforesaid judgment dated 26.5.1994 passed by ASJ, Sehore. 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 ballam. They inflicted injuries to the complainant Dev Karan who was taken to the Police Station by Udai Singh. Report (Ex. P-1) 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 IPC. Relying upon the statement of PW 2 Dev Karan, the MFC recorded finding that PW 2 Dev Karan was beaten by the applicants/accused persons with farsi and ballam. Accordingly, they were convicted under section 325/34 IPC. 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 overlooked the facts that PW 2 Devkaran 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-applicant persons and that the accused/applicants Devi Singh had not inflicted any injury to the complainant Devkaran. PW-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. PW/12 Dr. Accordingly, right of private defence was available to the accused-applicant persons and that the accused/applicants Devi Singh had not inflicted any injury to the complainant Devkaran. PW-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. PW/12 Dr. A. Bose states that on both the hands the bones were fractured. The injuries were grievous in nature as per report (Ex. P-10), therefore, it has been proved that Devkaran sustained the aforesaid lacerated wounds as well as fractures on his hands. PW -2 Devkaran has stated that Dev Singh was having an iron rod in his hands and has inflicted injuries on his head. Thereafter, he became unconscious. PW-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. PW-2 Devkaran has not stated that applicant/accused Devi Singh also inflicted injuries to him by means of Farsi and that as per the statement of PW-10 Dr. GC Joshi, PW-12 Dr. A Bose, there was no injury to Devkaran which could have been inflicted by sharp cutting weapon. Therefore, it is clear that no injury to the injured Devkaran was inflicted by Devi Singh, Dev Singh alone has beaten him by iron rod. PW -2 Devkaran in cross-examination in para 5 has stated that crop was shown by applicants/accused persons in the disputed field. Applicants/accused persons asked him not to remove crops. PW-2 Dev karan has stated that he was in the field where the applicants/accused have sown crops. This is also stated by PW-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 PW-2 Dev Karan was trying to remove the crop. In the circumstances, the applicants/accused persons had right of private defence. In this context the Judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 1083 has been cited. It is stated that under section 104 IPC, plea of private defence of property in causing the grievous hurt to Devkaran was available to the accused/applicants persons. Applicants/accused are entitled to protection of right of private defence of property under section 104 IPC. In this context the Judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 1083 has been cited. It is stated that under section 104 IPC, plea of private defence of property in causing the grievous hurt to Devkaran was available to the accused/applicants persons. Applicants/accused are entitled to protection of right of private defence of property under section 104 IPC. Ignoring the facts aforesaid emerging from the statements of PW 2 Devkaran, PW 5 Jeevan Singh recording of conviction under section 325/34 IPC cannot be said to be proper.