Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 54 (MP)

Maniram v. State of M. P.

2003-01-09

CHANDRESH BHUSHAN

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. Aggrieved by his conviction for an offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and sentence of 7 years' RI by the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Dabra district Gwalior in ST No. 188/93, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant was charged and tried for commission of an offence punishable under section 307 of IPC in the Court of First Addl. Sessions Judge, Dabra, hereinafter referred as the trial Court. After trial, the learned trial Court found him guilty of the offence with which he was charged, i.e., the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and awarded the impugned sentence of 7 years' RI to him. 3. The story of the prosecution was that on 12.3.1993 at about 7 O'clock in the morning, the appellant armed with a sickle (bakka) went to the field of Devisingh where injured Siddharth alias Sirdarsingh was cutting fodder. The appellant, after reaching at the spot, inflicted an injury with that sickle in the lower occipital region of the injured Sirdarsingh and thereafter repeatedly inflicted many more blows on the body of the injured causing him almost 18 injuries. On the call for help by the injured Sirdarsingh (PW 2), his father Hargyansingh (PW 1), Kaptansingh (PW 3) and Gajendrasingh (PW 4) etc. reached the place of the incident. The appellant, after seeing them, ran away. Thereafter, the injured was taken to the police station where he lodged the FIR and from police station he was taken to the hospital where he was examined by Dr Ram Prasad Saran (PW 7), who found 18 incised wounds on the body of the injured most of which were on the head, neck and the face of the injured. Later on after five days the accused was arrested and the weapon of the offence i.e. sickle was also recovered from him and on being sent for chemical examination, blood stains were found on it. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated because of a prior enmity. Later on after five days the accused was arrested and the weapon of the offence i.e. sickle was also recovered from him and on being sent for chemical examination, blood stains were found on it. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated because of a prior enmity. He also submitted that in any case, there was nothing to establish any intention on his part of causing death or causing such injury which was likely to cause death in the normal course of nature and therefore, at the most, a case of an offence punishable under section 324 of IPC was only made out, for which the appellant has already undergone sufficient imprisonment. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the conclusions reached by the learned trial Court. He submitted that as most of the injuries were on head, neck and the face of the injured, the only intention which could be gathered on the part of the appellant was that he wanted to commit murder of the injured. 6. Learned counsel of both the parties were heard and the record is perused. Injured Sirdarsingh (PW 2) in his testimony before the trial Court, has clearly averred that when he was cutting fodder in the field of Devisingh, the appellant came there from behind armed with a bakka and hit him with that bakka on his head and after he fell down continued to inflict injuries on his face and hand etc. till his father Hargyansingh (PW 1), Kaptansingh (PW 3) and Gajendrasingh (PW 4) reached the spot on his shouts for help. His father Hargyansingh (PW 1), Gajendrasingh (PW 4) and Kaptansingh (PW 3) have also corroborated his statement, though (PW 3) Kaptansingh has later on, admitted that on hearing shouts of injured when he reached the spot, the appellant was not there. But he has also stated that when he heard the shouts of injured, he saw the appellant assaulting him with a sickle and therefore, it is possible that when he reached the spot, he did not find the appellant as the appellant has escaped by that time. However, in his further cross- examination, this witness Kaptansingh has even denied that he has seen the appellant injuring the injured. However, in his further cross- examination, this witness Kaptansingh has even denied that he has seen the appellant injuring the injured. But, then he has also stated that after reaching the spot, the injured had told him that Maniram, i.e., the appellant had assaulted him. Therefore, even if the later version of witness Kaptansingh is to be relied upon, it cannot be said that any doubt was created by it against the reliability of PW 2, the injured or others The testimony of injured Sirdarsingh is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Ram Prasad Saran (PW 7), who had examined him just after the incident and had found 18 incised wounds on his body PW 8 Mahesh Shrivastava has also proved the recovery of the sickle from the appellant. Considering all this the prosecution evidence of injured and other witnesses regarding infliction of injuries with a sharp-edged weapon, i.e., sickle by the appellant to the injured is relied upon and the finding of the learned trial Court is confirmed. It is held that the appellant has voluntarily caused injuries on the lower occipital part, neck, face and other parts of the body of the injured with a sharp-edged weapon to wit, sickle. 7. As per PW 7 Dr. Ram Prasad Saran, on an enquiry by the police, he had opined that all the injuries together could have been dangerous for the life of the injured. In his report Ex. P-7, he had mentioned that the opinion regarding nature of injuries will be given after 21 days' observation am investigation to be done in Medical College. Gwalior. There was no evidence regarding any observation or investigation done in the Medical College, Gwalior. The medical expert, Dr. Ram Prasad Saran (PW 7) has also admitted that there was no fracture found in the injury No. 1 and it was possible that all the injuries were found to be simple in nature. From the description of the injuries in his report (Ex P-7) also all the injuries appear to be simple. The injury No. 1 found on the mid-line of lower occipital region was 14 cm. long and 1 cm. deep, but no bone was cut and therefore, it was also clearly a simple injury. There was no other evidence to show that any of the injuries found or the body of the injured was grievous in nature. The injury No. 1 found on the mid-line of lower occipital region was 14 cm. long and 1 cm. deep, but no bone was cut and therefore, it was also clearly a simple injury. There was no other evidence to show that any of the injuries found or the body of the injured was grievous in nature. Most of them were 1/4 cm. to ½ cm. deep only. None of these injuries could be said to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of the injured nor was any evidence adduced by the prosecution to that effect. Sufficient evidence was not there also about all the injuries taken together having cumulative effect of causing death of the injured due to them. The appellant was a young person aged about 22 years. He was armed with a sharp-edged weapon like sickle. If he had the intention to cause death or cause such bodily injury which could cause death of the injured, there was nothing to prevent him from inflicting more deep injuries. It was for the prosecution to establish that the intention of the accused was one of the three kinds mentioned in section 300 of CrPC. It is no doubt true that from the surrounding circumstances and the nature of injuries, the intention of the accused can be inferred. But in the present case, from the surrounding circumstances, especially the nature of injuries caused to injured, it is difficult to conclude that the intention of the appellant was of anyone of three kinds mentioned in section 300 of CrPC. But in the present case, from the surrounding circumstances, especially the nature of injuries caused to injured, it is difficult to conclude that the intention of the appellant was of anyone of three kinds mentioned in section 300 of CrPC. A Bench of this High Court in the case of Abdul Samim v. State of M.P., reported it 1987 (2) MPWN 144, had where six incised wounds were found on the person of the injured out of which one was on the abdomen and was deep upto peritoneun and reported to be dangerous for life, held that the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC has not been brought home and found the accused guilty of only an offence punishable under section 324 of IPC Similarly, in the case of Virendra Kumar v. State of M.P., reported in 1993 (II) MPWN 77 , another Bench of this Court in a case where seven injuries caused by , knife including the injury on the chest were found on the person of the injured held that no case of an offence punishable under section 307 of IPC is made out because as per the opinion of the doctor all those injuries were simple in nature and it view of the simple nature of injuries and knife blows, it was held that it could not be said that the appellant had any intention to kill the injured. Similar is the present case as already observed before. Considering the nature of the injuries found on the person of the injured, the instrument used and the age etc. of the appellant, it could not be inferred that the appellant had intention to cause any injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The finding of the learned trial Court in that respect appears to be erroneous and is therefore, set aside. The conviction of the appellant is thus modified as one for an offence punishable under section 324 of IPC instead of section 307 of IPC. 8. The appellant, as per his learned counsel, has already undergone imprisonment for a period of more than 2 years and 8 months. No previous criminal history has even been suggested. He was an agriculturist. The conviction of the appellant is thus modified as one for an offence punishable under section 324 of IPC instead of section 307 of IPC. 8. The appellant, as per his learned counsel, has already undergone imprisonment for a period of more than 2 years and 8 months. No previous criminal history has even been suggested. He was an agriculturist. Considering all this together with the other facts and circumstances of the case, the imprisonment already undergone by the appellant appears to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice in the present case. The impugned sentence awarded to the appellant is also therefore modified to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant. 9. The appeal is thus party allowed and the impugned conviction as well as sentence are accordingly modified.