Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 890 (MP)

Jamsingh v. State of M. P.

2006-07-20

S.S.DWIVEDI

body2006
JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The appellants, have preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of the CrPC feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.4.1997 rendered by 1st Additional Sessions Judge Alirajpur in ST No. 155/90 whereby the appellants have been found guilty under sections 307/34 IPC and sentenced to underge RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default further RI for 4 months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.6.1989 appellants along with co-accused Kekdia who died during pendency of this case went to the house of complainant Jalmia and Shankar. After some hot talks, both the accused/appellants caused injuries to complainant Shankar and Jalmia by means of bow and arrows. The matter has been reported to Police Chandpur vide Ex. P-l. The police has registered crime under section 307/34 IPC. Injured Shankar and Jalmia were sent to Government Hospital, Alirajpur for medical examination. Dr.N.S. Dabar (W 7) examined Shankar and found two incised penetrating wound on the right side on the back and other on the right hand for which he issued his report Ex. P-15. Similarly, the doctor also examined injured Jalmia and found one incised penetrating wound on his right hand for which the doctor issued its report Ex. P-16. Dr. Banwarilal Khagar (PW 3) took out x-ray of injured Shankar and found arrow plate in the 4th vertebra. Ex. P-5 is the x-ray report. The police has recorded the statement of the complainants and other witnesses, arrested the appellant/accused and filed charge sheet before the trial Court. Both the appellants abjured their guilt and their defence is of false implication in the case. Learned trial Court, after due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence on record, found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced them as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that looking to the nature of injuries which has been caused by the appellants their intention to commit death of the complainants is not apparent on the basis of the medical report and on the basis of the statement of the complainant charge which can be found proved against the appellants is only at the most under sections 324, 326 IPC. Learned trial Court has wrongly held the appellants guilty under section 307 IPC, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State while supporting the findings recorded by the trial Court has submitted that the appellants have caused injuries to the complainants by means of bow and arrows itself show the intention of the appellants and the learned trial Court has rightly found the appellants guilty under section 307 IPC, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. To bring home the charge against the appellant for causing injuries to the complainants, is concerned Shankar (PW 1) has specifically stated that it is appellant-accused Jamsing and Radhliya who caused injuries by bow and arrows to his back and right hand. 7. Similarly, they also caused injuries by means of bow and arrows to other witness Jalmia also by means of bow arrows which caused injuries to his right wrist. This statement of Shankar (PW 1) has got full support by the statement of witness Jalmia (PW 2) who is also injured in this case. Similarly, this has got further support by the statement of medical witness Dr. N.S. Dabar (PW 7) who found two incised injuries on the person of complainant Shankar and one incised injury on the person of injured Jalmia for which he issued injury report Ex. P-15 and P-l6 respectively. The statement of complainant has also got support by the first information report, which has been lodged by the complainant in the concerned police station. 8. The injuries sustained by complainant Shankar are of grievous in nature which have been found proved by the medical witness Dr. Banwarilal Khagar (PW 3) who proved that by this injury 4th vertebra of complainant Shankar has been also damaged. In view of the statement of the aforesaid medical witness the injuries sustained by the complainant Shankar appears to be proved to be grievous in nature. 9. Now the question arose for determination is whether by this injury, intention of the appellants can be inferred as to causing of such injury which may be endanger the life of complainant Shankar. On perusal of the aforesaid statement, it is apparent that both accused persons had caused single injury to the complainant. 9. Now the question arose for determination is whether by this injury, intention of the appellants can be inferred as to causing of such injury which may be endanger the life of complainant Shankar. On perusal of the aforesaid statement, it is apparent that both accused persons had caused single injury to the complainant. Generally, in the tribal area like Jhabua, the tribal use keep weapons like bow and arrows with them. Therefore, merely keeping of bow and arrows with them does not prove any intention for causing injury with the intention that which may endanger the life of the complainant. As such in view of that the intention for causing death to the complainant by causing single injury, is also not inferred. Therefore, on the basis of that, charge under section 307 IPC is not found proved as held by the trial Court. 10. Resultantly, the finding of the trial Court by holding the appellants guilty under section 307/34 IPC is liable to be set aside. The appellants at the most can be held guilty under section 326/34 IPC. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants, at the stage, has submitted that this case is pending since 1989, more than 17 years lapsed and both the appellants are appearing before the Court regularly, therefore, prayed for the sentence to the period already undergone. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under section 307/34 IPC are set aside and in stead thereof, appellants have been found guilty under section 326/34 IPC and in view of the aforesaid discussions, each of the appellants is sentenced to undergo 1 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default they will have to suffer imprisonment for 2 months. 13. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this appeal stands disposed of. 14. Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court.