Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 130 (MP)

Revaram v. State of M. P.

2004-02-09

S.K.PANDE

body2004
Judgment ( 1. ) SPECIAL Jud1ge, Seoni vide impugned judgment dated 16-2-98 in Special Case No. 5/96 recording conviction of accused/appellants under Sections 394 (Part I)/149, 323/149, 452, 148, IPC sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of 10 years, 4 months and six months respectively. Being aggrieved, the accused/appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374, Cr. PC ( 2. ) ON 4-2-91 in the evening, there was some quarrel between Mahesh Prasad and Revaram. On 5-2-91, accused/appellants had been to the house of Mahesh Prasad and started quarreling. Mahesh Prasad, Puranta Bai, Omkar Prasad and Inkardas sustained injuries as per beating by accused/appellants. Therefore, Mahesh Prasad lodged the report (Ex. P-2 ). Injured Mahesh Prasad, Puranta Bai, Omkar and Inkardas were sent for medical examination. As per medical examination reports (Exs. P-14, P-15, P-16 and P-17) simple injuries were reported. However, on 22-2-91, Inkardas died. Receiving information (Ex. P-20), the Merg was registered and preparing Panchnama (Ex. P-3), the dead body of Inkardas was sent for post mortem. The post mortem report (Ex. P-1) describes tetanus as the cause of death. Completing the investigation accused/appellants were charge sheeted under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149 and 452, IPC. Accordingly, charges were framed against them in Special Case No. 5/96, They abjured the guilt. Relying on the statements of witnesses, the Special Judge recorded acquittal of accused/appellants under Section 302/149, IPC. However, convicted them under Sections 304/149, 323/149, 452, 148 and sentenced them accordingly. ( 3. ) DR. B. P. Namdeo (P. W. 11) sent the information (Ex. P-20) to the effect that Inkardas admitted in the hospital for treatment, died of tetanus on 22-2-91. On the basis aforesaid, Panchnama (Ex. P-3) of the dead body was prepared. It was sent for post mortem. Dr. S. K. Shrivastava (P. W. 1) performed the post mortem and submitted the report (Ex. P-1 ). Dr. S. K Shrivastava (P. W. 1) has stated that the deceased Inkardas died of Tetanus. Dr. B. P. Namdeo (P. W. 11) also in his report opined that the cause of death of Inkardas, was tetanus. On sustaining injuries Inkardas was sent for medical examination. M. N. Suryanshi (P. W. 9) on examination found the following injuries :- (1) Lacerated wound 1 x 1 cm. , right forehead. (2) Lacerated wound 1 x 1 cm. , right hand little finger. (3) Contusion 10 x 3 cm. On sustaining injuries Inkardas was sent for medical examination. M. N. Suryanshi (P. W. 9) on examination found the following injuries :- (1) Lacerated wound 1 x 1 cm. , right forehead. (2) Lacerated wound 1 x 1 cm. , right hand little finger. (3) Contusion 10 x 3 cm. , right thigh. ( 4. ) THE aforesaid injuries were simple in nature and said to have been caused by hard and blunt object is the statement of M. N. Suryanshi (P. W. 9 ). The aforesaid injuries to Inkardas were inflicted on 5-2-91. At that time injuries were quite simple and could not have caused the death in the ordinary course of nature. He was later on admitted to the hospital for treatment of tetanus and on 22-2-91 died of tetanus. Therefore, it can not be said that alleged beating by the accused/appellants resulted into death of Inkardas. The Special Judge erred in recording the conviction of accused/appellants under Section 304/149 of IPC. ( 5. ) DR. M. N. Suryanshi (P. W. 9) on 5-2-91 examined Mahesh Prasad and as per Ex. P-14 found the following injuries :-Abrasion 1 x 1 cm. , on right hand. Abrasion 1 x 2 cm. , left fore-arm. Contusion 3 x 4 cm. , occipital region Contusion 5 x 7 cm. , right upper shoulder. ( 6. ) ON examination there was an abrasion 0. 5 x 0. 5 cm,, on right fore-arm of Puranta Bai. Similarly an abrasion 2 x 2 cm. , was found on right hand of Omkar Prasad. The injury reports are Exs. P-14, P-15, P-16. These injuries were simple and said to have been caused by hard and blunt object. There is no dispute to the fact that Mahesh Prasad, Puranta Bai, Omkar Prasad sustained the aforesaid simple injuries. ( 7. ) MAHESH Prasad (P. W. 2), Omkar Prasad (P. W. 3) and Puranta Bai have stated that accused/appellants inflicted aforesaid injuries to them as well as to the deceased Inkardas. Mahesh Prasad (P. W. 2) immediately after the incident lodged the report (Ex. P-2 ). Mahesh Prasad (P. W. 2) also has stated that the appellants/accused persons entered into the hut and dragged out Inkardas for beating. Thereafter he was beaten by accused/appellants. As against the aforesaid statements, it is contended that the complainant party itself was the assailant and the report (Ex. P-2 ). Mahesh Prasad (P. W. 2) also has stated that the appellants/accused persons entered into the hut and dragged out Inkardas for beating. Thereafter he was beaten by accused/appellants. As against the aforesaid statements, it is contended that the complainant party itself was the assailant and the report (Ex. D-1) to the effect was lodged by accused/appellant Revaram. Accused/appellant Revaram and Kashi Prasad were also sent for medical examination. Exs. D-4, D-3 report respectively are to the effect that simple injuries to accused/appellant Revaram, Kashi Prasad were also found at the time of medical examination. Mahesh Prasad (P. W. 1), Omkar Prasad (P. W. 2), Puranta Bai (P. W. 4) have not explained the aforesaid injuries, said to have been sustained by the accused/appellants Revaram and Kashi Prasad. ( 8. ) FROM the aforesaid evidence on record, it can very well be said that in an ordinary incident of quarrel, both parties sustained simple injuries. Injuries to the accused/appellant Revaram, Kashiprasad (D-4 and D-3) were similar to the injuries sustained by Mahesh Prasad, Puranta Bai, Omkar Prasad and Inkardas (Exs. P-14, P-15, P-16 and P-17 ). The reason for quarrel was the incident dated 4-2-91 whereby accused/appellant Revaram was said to have been assaulted by Mahesh Prasad (P. W. 2 ). In the quarrel aforesaid, the injuries from the side of accused/appellants were inflicted to Mahesh Prasad, Puranta Bai, Omkar and Inkarcjas. Similarly from the side of the complainant party, injuries were inflicted to the accused/appellants Revaram and Kashiprasad. None of them had any intention to inflict fatal injuries to anyone so as to cause death nor the injuries inflicted by either side were fatal or sufficient in ordinary course of nature, to cause the death. Therefore, it was a simple incident of quarrel wherein both the sides inflicted simple injuries to each other. ( 9. ) CONSEQUENTLY, appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence under Section 304/149, IPC are set aside. However, conviction-sentence recorded by Special Judge vide impugned judgment under Sections 148, 323/149, 452, IPC are maintained. Accused/appellants have already undergone the aforesaid period of imprisonment, therefore they need not surrender to their bail bonds.