Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1012 (MP)

Mohanlal v. State of M. P.

2006-08-24

S.S.DWIVEDI

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 29.3.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Special Sessions Trial No. 281/2003 whereby the learned trial Court has found the present appellant guilty under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further ordered to suffer imprisonment for six months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that at about 11:00 a.m. on 25.8.2003 at village Berchha, present appellant Mohanlal together with other seven co-accused persons came to the field of complainant and started quarrelling with them. All the accused persons caused various injuries to the complainant party. Present appellant-accused Mohanlal has fired by a gun by which the complainant party sustained injuries by the pellets. The matter has been reported by the complainant at Police Station, Nagda on which basis Police has registered a case under sections 147, 148 and 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as complainant party belong to Scheduled Caste. Injured persons were sent for medical examination at Civil Hospital at Nagda. During the investigation, concerned Police has prepared the spot map, also seized the pellets from the hospital, arrested the accused persons and after due investigation filed the charge-sheet before the trial Court. All the accused persons abjured their guilt and their defence is of false implication in the case by the complainant party. Learned trial Court, after due appreciation of the prosecution evidence, acquitted seven co-accused persons from the various charges levelled against them and only held the present appellant-accused Mohanlal guilty under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as stated hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Shri Virendra Sharma and learned Government Advocate Shri G.S. Chouhan and perused the record. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Court has committed error in holding the appellant-accused guilty under sectionm 307 of the Indian Penal Code whereas no substantial evidence is available on record against the present appellant. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Court has committed error in holding the appellant-accused guilty under sectionm 307 of the Indian Penal Code whereas no substantial evidence is available on record against the present appellant. All the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and not stated anything against the present appellant also and on the basis of this statement, remaining seven co-accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court itself. Gun has been fired by the present appellant is also not proved by the prosecution evidence on record, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment and for acquittal of the appellant-accused. 5. In reply, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned judgment and submits that on the basis of the statement of the injured complainant Ramsingh (PW 1), it is clear that it is the appellant-accused Mohanlal who fired a gun which resulted the various injuries to the complainant party. This has been proved by another witness Shantilal (PW 26) also. The injuries of the complainant party has been proved by medical evidence and in view of the aforesaid evidence, learned trial Court has rightly held the appellant-accused guilty under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and no grounds are available to interfere with the aforesaid impugned judgment, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. The bring home the charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code which has been levelled against the appellant/accused, it is apparent that injured complainant Ramsingh (PW 11) stated that appellant-accused Mohanlal fired by gun whereby injuries by the pellets have been caused to his brother Pyarji, but in the second sentence, he admitted the fact that he does not know who has fired a gun and also not know as to which of the accused has caused which injury to the complainant. Only on the basis of this statement, he has been declared hostile and in his cross-examination also, he denied the fact of narration of facts mentioned in the first information report. 7. Similarly, second injured Pyarji (PW 2) has also not stated anything against the present appellant-accused that present appellant-accused Mohanlal has fired a gun which caused any injury to him. He has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. 7. Similarly, second injured Pyarji (PW 2) has also not stated anything against the present appellant-accused that present appellant-accused Mohanlal has fired a gun which caused any injury to him. He has also been declared hostile by the prosecution. Similarly, other witnesses Sukhram (PW 3), Mohan (PW 4), Bharat (PW 5), Bhanwarlal (PW 6), Shaitanbai (PW 7), Suganbai (PW 8), Shantilal (PW 9), Bhagwansingh (PW 10), Radheshyam (PW 11), Rameshwar (PW 12), Shivji (PW 13), Nagu (PW 14), Vikram (PW 15), Bardiram (PW 16), Nandu (PW 17), Balu (PW 18), Prakash (PW 19), Ramesh (PW 20), Madhu (PW 21), Shambhoo (PW 22) and Shantibai (PW 24) also not supported the prosecution story and involvement of the present appellant-accused in this incident. All these witnesses are also declared hostile by the prosecution and on the basis of the statement of the aforesaid witnesses also nothing has been proved against the present appellant. 8. Similarly, learned trial Court has only relied on the statement of Shantilal (PW 26) who stated that it is the appellant-accused Mohanlal who fired a gun by which he also sustained injuries by the pellets. He is said to be the injured witness, but in cross-examination, it is apparent that in his first statement Ex. D-1, which has been recorded immediately after the incident by the Police in that statement he has not stated anything that it is the appellant-accused Mohanlal who fired by a gun which caused the injuries to him also. This appears to be a material contradiction in the statement of Shantilal and on the basis of this contradiction, the aforesaid statement given by the witness Shantilal (PW 26) with regard to the involvement of the prsent appellant-accused in this incident cannot be believed. On perusal of the statement of Ex. D-l, it is apparent that he knew about the incident at hospital by the other complainant. In view of that, his statement given during the trial appears to be not correct. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of Joseph v. State of Kerala [2003 SCC (Cri) 356] wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that though a witness may be injured in the incident, but if his statement appears to be doubtful then only on the basis of the fact that he is an injured witness, his statement cannot be the sole basis of conviction of the appellant-accused. 10. 10. Other witness Dr. Anil Dube (PW 23) proved the injury certificate Ex. P-47 to Ex. P-112, injury reports of the various complainants. As stated hereinabove, the statement of Dr. Anil Dube (PW 23) is not having any value in the situation and that complainant party has not at all given any statement with regard to the involvement of any of the accused persons in this incident. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, learend trial Court has committed error in holding the appellant-accused guilty under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and thus, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 12. Resultantly, this appeal filed by the appellant-accused is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appellant is acquited from the charge under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The fine amount, if deposited by the appellant, be refunded to him accordingly. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond stand discharged forthwith. Similarly, the order of forfeiture of the gun as passed by the learned trial Court is also set aside. The seized licensee gun be returned to the appellant-accused Mohanlal on proving the valid licence properly before the trial Court.