Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 783 (MP)

Dayaram v. State of M. P.

2003-06-26

S.L.JAIN

body2003
JUDGMENT This revision petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 12.1.1998, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panna, in Criminal Appeal No. 20/95, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 13.2.1995, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panna, in Criminal Case No. 20/93, whereby the petitioners Dayaram and Ram Shiromani stood convicted for the offences punishable under sections 452 and 323, IPC. Both of them have been sentenced to R.I. for three months and a fine of Rs. 200.00 each, in default to undergo R.I. for one month, for offence punishable under section 452, IPC. They have further been sentenced to fine of Rs. 200.00, in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days, for offence punishable under section 323, IPC. The prosecution case shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this revision is that the complainant party and the petitioners belong to the same family. There was some dispute regarding the partition of the family property. Four days prior to the date of incident, petitioner Ram Shiromani uprooted certain plants of gram standing in the field of complainant Ram Swaroop. On 11.2.1993 at about 7.30 p.m. when complainant Ram Swaroop was tying his cattle in his house, both the petitioners entered his house. Petitioners Dayaram was armed with an axe and petitioner Ram Shiromani was armed with a lathi. Petitioner Ram Shiromani told the complainant Ram Swaroop that as he prevented him from uprooting the gram plants, he will face the music for the same. Thereafter, petitioner Dayaram dealt an axe blow from its blunt side on the head of Ram Swaroop. On hearing the alarm raised by the complainant, his mother Baijanti Bai (PW 2), his brother Subhash (PW 5) and Barelal (PW 8) rushed to the place of occurrence. Petitioner Ram Shiromani dealt a lathi blow on the left forearm of Baijanti Bai. On intervention by Subhash and Barelal, the petitioners ran away from the spot. FIR of the incident, Ex. P-I was lodged by Ram Swaroop on the same day at 10.30 p.m. at P.S. Saleha. The injured were sent for medical examination to PHC, Saleha. Dr. K.M. Soni (PW 5) examined Ram Swaroop and found one lacerated wound (wrongly described as incised wound in the judgment of the trial Court), 1-1/2" x 1/5" x 1/10" on his head. Ex. P-5 is the report of Dr. Soni. The injured were sent for medical examination to PHC, Saleha. Dr. K.M. Soni (PW 5) examined Ram Swaroop and found one lacerated wound (wrongly described as incised wound in the judgment of the trial Court), 1-1/2" x 1/5" x 1/10" on his head. Ex. P-5 is the report of Dr. Soni. He also examined Baijanti Bai and found one abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" on her left forearm. Ex. P-6 is the report of Dr. Soni. He opined that injuries caused to Ram Swaroop and Baijanti Bai were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. In his opinion the duration of injuries was four hours. After completion of investigation, a challan was filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under section 452 and 323, IPC. Charges for the offences stated above were framed by the trial Court against the petitioners. They abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court found the petitioners guilty for the offences charged against them and as such, they were convicted and sentenced as indicated above. On appeal, filed by the petitioners, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the same and affirmed the judgment and order of the trial Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.1.1998, which the petitioners have challenged in this revision. I have heard Shri S.K. Gangele, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri S.K. Gangrade, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State, and perused the records. The main thrust of the argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that conviction is based on the evidence of Ram Swaroop (PW 1), Baijanti Bai (PW 2) and Subhash Chandra (PW 6). Baijanti Bai (PW 2) is the mother of complainant and Subhash Chandra is his brother. Admittedly, there was enmity between the petitioners and the complainant, therefore, the trial Court and the lower appellate Court should have rejected their evidence. But the law is settled now that interested witnesses are not necessarily false witnesses though the fact that those witnesses have personal interest must put the Court on its guard that the evidence of such witnesses must be subjected to close scrutiny and the Court must assess the testimony of each important witness and that no evidence should at once be discarded simply because it came from an interested person. The occurrence in this case has taken place inside the house. The presence of the above named three witnesses in the house was natural. Both the Courts-below, after close scrutiny relied on the evidence of these witnesses. Having regard to the medical evidence it has to be accepted that evidence of witnesses is credible and their presence cannot be doubted at the scene of occurrence. Simply because there is some dispute in respect of the landed property, the prosecution story cannot be discarded outright. The proposition put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the eye witnesses to the occurrence being interested witnesses, there should be corroboration of their evidence by independent witnesses is not a rule of universal application. Otherwise also, in this case, corroboration has come from the medical evidence. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the same are concluded by the concurrent findings of the Courts-below and this Court has a very limited power to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction. I find no reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Courts-below. Regarding sentence, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the injuries suffered by the victims are superficial, therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioners is harsh. The learned counsel further contended that it was obligatory for both the Courts-below to give the petitioners the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and provisions of section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The incident occurred on 11.2.1993. A period on one decade has elapsed thereafter. Now, it will not be apposite to send the petitioners to jail again. Even otherwise, the sentence awarded by the Courts-below is of only three months' R.I. Such a short term imprisonment should be discouraged. It does not serve any purpose. It cannot have a deterent effect. On the contrary, the company of inmates of jail for such a short time may spoil the petitioners. Therefore, I think it appropriate to award the sentence of imprisonment to the petitioners for the period already undergone by them. The sentence of fine imposed upon the petitioners does not call for any interference. As a result of aforesaid discussion, this revision stands partly allowed. The petitioners are sentenced for imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine imposed upon both the petitioners is maintained. The sentence of fine imposed upon the petitioners does not call for any interference. As a result of aforesaid discussion, this revision stands partly allowed. The petitioners are sentenced for imprisonment for the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine imposed upon both the petitioners is maintained. The amount of fine has already been deposited by both the petitioners before the trial Court, therefore, no further order in this regard needs to be passed by this Court. The personal bonds and bail bonds of the petitioners stand discharged. They need not to surender before the trial Court. A copy of this order be sent to Sessions Judge, Panna, for transmission thereof to the lower appellate Court and the trial Court concerned.