Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 535 (MP)

Rai Singh v. State of M. P.

2008-04-03

SHEELA KHANNA, SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2008
JUDGMENT Samvatsar, J. -- 1. This appeal is preferred by the six appellants accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.2.1998 delivered by the Fifth Additional Session Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 79/1993, whereby the Sessions Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: S. Appellant/ Section Sentence Fine Default No. Accused I.P.C. 1. Rai Singh 148 2 years RI. 302/149 Life imprisonment 2000 2 years RI. 325/149 2 years R.I. 324 1 year RI. 323/149 6 months RI. 2. Keshav 148 2 years R.I. 302 Life imprisonment 2000 2 years R.I. 325/149 2 years RI. 324 1 year R.I. 323/149 6 months R.I. 3. Ujagar Singh 148 2 years R.I. 302/149 Life imprisonment 2000 2 years RI. 325/149 2 years R.I. 324/149 1 year R.I. 323 6 months R.I. 4. lndra Singh 148 2 years R.I. 302/149 Life imprisonment 2000 2 years RI. 324/149 1 year RI. 325 2 years R.I. 323 6 months R.I. 5. Gyan Singh 148 2 years R.I. 302/149 Life imprisonment 2000 2 years RI. 325/149 2 years RI. 324/149 1 year 323 6 months RI. 6. Shyam Singh 148 2 years RI. 302/149 Life imprisonment 2000 2 years R.I. 325/149 2 years R.I. 324 1 year R.I. 323/149 6 months R.I. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. 2. As per prosecution case, on 16.12.1992 at about 5:30 in the evening Suresh (PW 5) was going to his field from his house to answer the nature call. He heard noise from the direction of 'Phoot' field. He went to the said direction and saw Balram, Ujagar son of Pratap, Keshav, Gyan Singh, Rai Singh, Shyam Singh, Indal were irrigating their fields. Ummed, Ramhet, Rambaran Singh, Sobaran were also present there. Shyam Singh and Rai Singh armed with 'farsa'. They destroyed the 'Medh' (boundary) of the field, and thereafter Keshav, Ujagar, Gyan Singh, Indal went there with 'lathis' and 'ballam', and started causing injuries to Ummed, Ramhet, Sobaran and Rambaran. Keshav caused injury by 'ballam' on the chest of Rambaran, which stuck near nipple, due to which Rambaran was unconscious and fell down. Shyam Singh caused,injury by 'farsa' on the head of Ramhet. Rai Singh caused injury by 'farsa' on the head of Ummed. Thereafter Pahalwan, Shrigovind, Jagram came on the spot and saved Sobaran. In the incident, Sobaran, Ramhet, Rambaran, Sarwati and Ummed were also injured. Shyam Singh caused,injury by 'farsa' on the head of Ramhet. Rai Singh caused injury by 'farsa' on the head of Ummed. Thereafter Pahalwan, Shrigovind, Jagram came on the spot and saved Sobaran. In the incident, Sobaran, Ramhet, Rambaran, Sarwati and Ummed were also injured. The report of the incident was lodged by Suresh (PW 5) at Police Station, Umri, which is 4 kms away from the village Gahwat. On the basis of the report, the police registered criminal case at Crime No. 16/1993 against the accused and after investigation filed challan. The matter was committed to the Sessions Court and the· Sessions Court framed charges against the accused as under: (i) Rai Singh - u/s 148, 302/149, 325/149, 324, 323/149 IPC (ii) Keshav - u/s 148, 302, 325/149, 324, 323/149 IPC (iii) Ujagar Singh - u/s 148, 302/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323 IPC (iv) Indra Singh - u/s 148, 302/149, 324/149, 325, 323 IPC (v) Gyan Singh - u/s 148, 302/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323 IPC (vi) Shyam Singh - u/s 148, 302/149, 325/149, 324,323/149 IPC 3. The Sessions Court after examining as many as 23 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and 6 witnesses on behalf of the defence has convicted the accused as aforesaid, hence this appeal. 4. Shri Madhukar Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case Rambaran Singh died due to injuries sustained by him, while other five persons had sustained simple injuries. According to him, the incident had taken place due to the dispute over taking water for irrigation purposes. He submits that the incident had taken place suddenly, and therefore, offence under section 302 IPC is not made out. In support of his argument, he invited attention of this Court first to the statement of Suresh (PW 5), who is injured witness as well as the author of the FIR. 5. Suresh (PW 5) in his statement has stated that on 28.11.1992 he had gone to his village Gewat after obtaining 15 days' leave from 13 Battalion, where he is working. On 6.12.1992 the incident had taken place at about 5:30 in the evening. At that time he was in his house and was going to the field for answering the natural call. On 6.12.1992 the incident had taken place at about 5:30 in the evening. At that time he was in his house and was going to the field for answering the natural call. He heard noise from the direction of 'Phoot' field and when he reached there, he saw Balram, Ujagar son of Pratap, Keshav, Gyan Singh, Rai Singh, Shyam Singh, Indal were irrigating their fields. Ummed, Ramhet, Rambaran Singh, Sobaran were also present there. Shyam Singh and Rai Singh were armed with 'farsa'. They destroyed the 'Medh' (boundary) of the field, and thereafter Keshav, Ujagar, Gyan Singh, Indal went there with 'lathis' and 'ballam'. Keshav caused injury by 'ballam' on the chest of Rambaran, which stuck near nipple, due to which Rambaran became unconscious and fell down. Shyam Singh caused injury by 'farsa' on the head of Ramhet Rai Singh caused injury by 'farsa' on the head of Ummed. Blood started oozing from the said injury. This witness states that when he intervened, Ujagar, Indal and Gyan Singh caused injuries to him by 'lathis'. Thereafter Pahalwan, Shrigovind, Jagram came on the spot and Sobaran saved him. Sobaran, Ramhet, Rambaran, Sarwati and Ummed were also injured in the said incident. Rambaran, Ummed and Ramhet were lying unconscious. Ujagar, Indal and Gyan Singh caused injuries to them by 'lathis'. This witness further states that Rambaran was taken on the cot to the police station, Umri and lodged the report Ex. P-7. In para 5 he admits that the incident had taken place due to water for irrigating the field. 6. Thus, from the statement of this witness, it appears that initially only two persons were present on the spot. They were Rai Singh and Shyam Singh and the dispute arose as they had destroyed the 'Medh' (boundary), and thereafter other accused assembled there. According to learned counsel for the appellants, it is clear that there was no common object between the party to commit any offence nor these persons were collected for committing any offence. 7. After perusing the statement of Suresh (PW 5) and the FIR Ex. P-7, we find that initially the incident had taken place due to cutting of 'Medh' (boundary) by two accused Shyam Singh and Rai Singh, and other accused were not present there, and they reached the spot only after the quarrel was started. 7. After perusing the statement of Suresh (PW 5) and the FIR Ex. P-7, we find that initially the incident had taken place due to cutting of 'Medh' (boundary) by two accused Shyam Singh and Rai Singh, and other accused were not present there, and they reached the spot only after the quarrel was started. This itself shows that all the accused were not collected with an object of committing any crime nor there was any common intention between them. From the statement of complainant Suresh (PW 5), it is clear that the incident had taken place due to sudden quarrel between Rai Singh and Shyam Singh and complainant party over irrigating the field. In such circumstances, offence under section 149 IPC is not proved in the present case and all the accused shall be liable only for their individual act. 8. Moreover, a cross case was also registered against the complainant party for causing injuries to the appellants and they were tried for commission of offence under section 307 IPC in ST No. 78/1993. They are convicted for the said offence, which shows that there was free-fight between the two groups. For this reason also, the present appellants cannot be held guilty for commission of offence under section 149 IPC. 9. Now, we have to examine the role of every accused individually. Appellant No.1 Rai Singh had 'farsa' in his hand, and as per the evidence he had caused 'farsa' injury on the head of Ummed and also caused injury on the little finger of Ramhet. Ummed was examined by Dr. R.S. Swarnkar (PW 3). In para 3 of his statement, he has stated that Ummed had sustained five injuries. Injury No. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon, injury No.2 was caused by some pointed weapon, and injuries No.3 to 5 were caused by hard and blunt object. Thus, the injuries sustained by Ummed are medically corroborated.; Ummed was referred to X-ray for injuries No.1, 2 and 5. After X-ray report, injuries No.1, 2 and 5 were found to be simple in nature. 10. As regards injury in little finger of Ramhet is concerned, the same was found to be a fracture, and thus it was grievous hurt. Thus, the injuries sustained by Ummed are medically corroborated.; Ummed was referred to X-ray for injuries No.1, 2 and 5. After X-ray report, injuries No.1, 2 and 5 were found to be simple in nature. 10. As regards injury in little finger of Ramhet is concerned, the same was found to be a fracture, and thus it was grievous hurt. Considering this fact, we set aside the conviction of appellant No.1 Rai Singh for commission of offence under sections 148, 302/149, 325/149 and 323/ 149 IPC as recorded by the Sessions Court, instead he is convicted for commission of offence under sections 323 and 324IPC. So far as sentence is concerned, he is in jail and has already undergone 15 years and 5 months' imprisonment. The maximum sentence under section 323 is 3 years. Considering this fact, we sentence appellant No.1 Rai Singh for 3 years R.l. for commission of offence under section 323 IPC and 5 years R.I. for commission of offence under section 324 IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. '"" 11. As regards appellant No. 2 Keshav is concerned, as per the allegations by the prosecution he had caused injury by 'ballam' on the chest of the deceased Rambaran Singh. Said injury is corroborated by the statement of Dr. K.N. Sharma (PW 1), who had performed his postmortem. He found one injury near nipple, which was 3x2 cm deep. He also found one abrasion on the shoulder. Third injury of size 2-112 x 2 x 1-1/2 cm on his chest. Injuries No.2 and 3 were found to be simple in nature, and there was one fatal injury, which is attributed to this appellant accused. As already discussed, the incident had taken place due to sudden quarrel between the two groups, and therefore this accused cannot be convicted for commission of offence under section 302 IPC, and at the most he can be held guilty for commission of offence under section 304 Part-I IPC for causing injury to deceased Rambaran, as the incident took place all of a sudden, and there was no premeditation. Hence, the conviction of this appellant under sections 148, 302, 325/149, 324 and 323/149 IPC is set aside and instead the appellant is convicted for commission of offence under section 304 Part-I, IPC. So far as sentence is concerned, he has already undergone 12 years 7 months and four months' imprisonment. Hence, the conviction of this appellant under sections 148, 302, 325/149, 324 and 323/149 IPC is set aside and instead the appellant is convicted for commission of offence under section 304 Part-I, IPC. So far as sentence is concerned, he has already undergone 12 years 7 months and four months' imprisonment. Considering this fact, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 12. As regards appellants Ujagar Singh, Indra Singh and Gyan Singh are concerned, they were having 'lathis' in their hands and had caused injuries to the injured Sobaran Singh, Suresh Singh, Ummed, Ramhet and Sarwati. The injuries sustained by the injured were found to be simple in nature. Apart from this, these three accused have also sustained injuries in the same incident, and on the complaint lodged by them a cross case was registered against the complainant party, in which complainant party was convicted for commission of offence under section 307 IPC by the trial Court, which finding was affirmed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 109/1998 vide judgment dated 24.4.2007. Considering this fact and the fact that all of them have already undergone more than 6 years' imprisonment, and in view of the fact that the incident occurred in the year 1992, therefore, we set aside the conviction of these appellants under sections 148, 302/149, 324/149 and 325 IPC, whereas their conviction for offence under section 323 IPC is maintained for causing simple injuries to Sobaran, Suresh, Ramhet and Saraswati. So far as sentence is concerned, these accused are found guilty for commission of offence under section 323 IPC for causing simple injuries. Hence they are convicted for commission of offence under section 32~ IPC on three counts. The maximum sentence for commission of sentence under section 323 IPC is one year. These appellants have already suffered sentence for more than two years. Considering this fact: we sentence them for one year's R.I. on three counts. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 13. As regards appellant No.6 Shyam is concerned, he was having 'farsa' in his hand and caused injury on the head of Ramhet. Injured Ramhet was examined by Dr. R.S. Swarnkar (PW 3) and found 7 injuries. Injuries No. I and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon, while injuries No.3 to 7 were caused by hard and blunt object. 13. As regards appellant No.6 Shyam is concerned, he was having 'farsa' in his hand and caused injury on the head of Ramhet. Injured Ramhet was examined by Dr. R.S. Swarnkar (PW 3) and found 7 injuries. Injuries No. I and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon, while injuries No.3 to 7 were caused by hard and blunt object. For injuries No.5 and 7, injured was advised X-ray by the doctor. Injury No.6 was found to be simple in nature. Thus, this appellant-accused is guilty for commission of offence under section 326 IPC. Hence, the conviction this appellant under section 148,302/149,325/149,324 and 323/149 IPC is set aside and instead the appellant is convicted for commission of offence under section 326 IPC. So far as sentence is concerned, he is in jail for more than 15 years and 5 months. In such circumstances, we sentence him to three years R.I. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of appellant No.1 Rai Singh for the offence under section 148, 302/149, 325/149, 324, 323/149 IPC is set aside and instead he is convicted for commission of offence under sections 323 & 324 IPC, and sentenced for 3 years and 5 years respectively. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Conviction of appellant No.2 Keshav for the offence under sections 148, 302,325/149,324,323/149 IPC is set aside and instead he is convicted for commission of offence under section 304 Part-I IPC, and sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Conviction of appellants No.3 to 5 Ujagar Singh, Indra Singh and Gyan Singh for the offence under sections 148, 302/149, 324/149, 325, 325/149 IPC isset aside and they are convicted for commission of offence under section 323 IPC on three counts and sentenced them for one year's R.I. on three counts. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Conviction of appellant No.6 Shyam Singh for the offence under sections 148, 302/149, 325/149, 324, 323/ 149 IPC is set aside and instead he is convicted for commission of offence under section 326 IPC, and sentenced to 3 years' R.I. Appellant No.1 Rai Singh and Appellant No.6 Shyam Singh are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appellants No.2 to 5 Keshav, Ujagar Singh, lndra Singh and Gyan Singh are on bail. Their bail bonds and sureties stand discharged.