Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 949 (MP)

Kamal Singh v. State of M. P.

2003-08-06

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated May 22, 1990 passed by Sessions Judge, Raisen in Sessions Trial No. 131/88, convicting him under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 200/ -. ( 2. ) THE prosecution story in brief is : On 1-5-1987 at about 6. 30 a. m. while the victim Hari Prasad (P. W. 4) was going on foot towards the house of Shyamlal Sahu, the sole accused/appellant intercepted him in front of the house of Ajab Singh and caused an injury on the back of his neck with a deadly weapon farsa. Hari Prasad (P. W. 4) raised an out cry and fell down. Witnesses Thakurdas (P. W. 5), Prem Narayan (P. W. 3) and one Rajesh on hearing the out cry of Hari Prasad (P. W. 4) went to the place of incident and rescued him from the appellant. Hari Prasad (P. W. 4) lodged the report at about 8. 45 a. m. at Police Station, Bareilly, District Raisen. After usual investigation the police filed the the charge-sheet against the appellant Kamal Singh for offence under Sections 307, 341 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code. ( 3. ) THE appellant abjured his guilt and in defense stated that he has been falsely implicated because of enmity. ( 4. ) IN the Trial Court the prosecution examined Bahadursingh (P. W. 1), Subhashchand (P. W. 2), Prem Narayan (P. W. 3), Hari Prasad (P. W. 4), Thakur Das (P. W. 5), Munne Khan (P. W. 6), Dr. N. K. Palod (P. W. 7), Girish Bohare (P. W. 8) and A. J. Khan (P. W. 9 ). In defence the appellant did not examine any witness. ( 5. ) THE Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 307, 341 and 506-11 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him for an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him R. I. for two years and fine of Rs. 200/ -. The appellant being aggrieved by this has filed the present appeal. ( 6. 200/ -. The appellant being aggrieved by this has filed the present appeal. ( 6. ) SHRI Subodh Gautam, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that from the evidence on record, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable because there are material contradictions in the evidence of Hari Prasad (P. W. 4) and the seizure of the weapon farsa from the appellant has not been proved. On the other hand, Shri Ravindra Rajpoot, learned Counsel for the State supported the judgment of the Trial Court. ( 7. ) WHILE appreciating the rival contentions of both the parties I find that the evidence of Hari Prasad (P. W. 4) is consistent with the First Information Report (Ex. P-3) lodged immediately by him. Mere absence of name of Rajesh Kumar who along with Prem Narayan (P. W. 3) and Thakur Das (P. W. 5) had rescued him in his evidence in the Court will not make his evidence un-trustworthy. Hari Prasad (P. W. 4) has deposed that on 1-5-1987 at about 6. 30 a. m. while he was going on foot towards the house of Shyamlal Sahu, appellant intercepted him in front of the house of Ajab Singh and caused an injury on the back of his neck by Farsa. On his out cry Thakur Das (P. W. 5) and Prem Narayan (P. W. 3) came and rescued him. His evidence has been duly corroborated by the eye-witnesses Thakur Das (P. W. 5) and Prem Narayan (P. W. 3 ). Their evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of Dr. N. K. Palod (P. W. 7) who has stated that the injury on the back side of his neck was 2 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2", regular margin caused by hard and sharp edged weapon. Thus, there is ample evidence to establish the charge against the appellant that he caused injury on the back of the neck of Hari Prasad (P. W. 4) with a farsa. True it is that the witnesses Subhashchand (P. W. 2), and Munne Khan (P. W. 6) did not support the prosecution case regarding seizure of farsa and turned hostile but looking to the clinching eye-witnesses account about inflicting the injury by the appellant on the back of neck by Farsa to Hari Prasad (P. W. 4) the prosecution case can not be discarded. Thus from the evidence available on record, it has been duly proved that the appellant caused an injury on the back of the neck of Hari Prasad (P. W. 4) by sharp edged weapon farsa. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby upheld. ( 8. ) AS regards the question of sentence, the learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the appellant is a young person and there is nothing on record to show that he is a habitual offender and in such circumstances no useful purpose would be served in sending him to back jail after the lapse of more than thirteen years and prayed for grant of probation. ( 9. ) CONSIDERING the submission with regard to sentence, in my opinion the appellant is entitled to be released on probation instead of being sending him to jail. The appellant be released on probation on good conduct for a period of one year from today on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, Raisen. During this period if any offence is committed by the appellant he will be called upon to receive the sentence already awarded by the Trial Court. Under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, I direct that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as compensation to complainant Hari Prasad within a period of three months from today. The said amount of Rs. 5000/- shall be deposited by the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Raisen which shall be paid to the complainant Hari Prasad. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.