Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1083 (MP)

ARJUN SINGH v. STATE OF M. P.

2009-09-02

K.S.CHAUHAN

body2009
JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence dated 9-8-2000 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No. 309/99 whereby the appellants Arjun Singh and Chandan Singh have been convicted under section 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months each with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine S.I. for 1 month and appellant Sumer Singh has been convicted under section 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine S.I. for 1 month. 2. Prosecution case in short is that on 29-6-1999 at about 3:00 PM when Bhagwan Singh Rajput was returning back to his house at village Kanchari carrying kerosene the appellants armed with katarna and lathi abused him in front of house of Durjan Lodhi. Appellant Sumer Singh inflicted katarna blow at his head. He ran away and fell down at the door of Thakurdas where he was beaten by appellants Arjun Singh and Chandan Singh by lathi blows, on account of which he sustained the injuries. The report was lodged on the same day at about 6:00 PM by Babu Singh. 3. On this report Crime No. 206/99 was registered at P.S. Naryawali under sections 294, 324, 506-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code. The injured was sent for medical examination. He was examined by Dr. C. K. Dubey (PW-9) and found the injuries mentioned in medical report (Ex.P-12). He was also admitted in Civil Hospital, Sagar. On X-ray examination of skull hairline fracture was detected in parietal bone. Spot map was prepared. The weapons were seized. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the usual investigation the charge sheet was filed under sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 294 and 506-B of Indian Penal Code in the court of J.M.F.C. Sagar who committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. 4. Accused persons were charged under sections 307, 307/34 and 506 Part-2 of Indian Penal Code. They denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Two witnesses were examined as Court witness. The accused persons also examined 2 witnesses in their defence. 4. Accused persons were charged under sections 307, 307/34 and 506 Part-2 of Indian Penal Code. They denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Two witnesses were examined as Court witness. The accused persons also examined 2 witnesses in their defence. After appreciating the evidence trial Court acquitted the appellants from the charge under sections 307, 307/34 and 506 Part-2 of Indian Penal Code but found appellants Arjun Singh and Chandan Singh guilty under section 323 and appellant Summer Singh 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced thereto as stated hereinabove in para No. 1 of this judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence, the instant appeal has been preferred, by the appellants on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5. Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the court below has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. There are contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and appellants are entitled for acquittal. 6. On the contrary, Shri G. P. Singh, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate supported the judgment, finding and sentence mainly contending that the prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. Therefore, the finding of guilt is proper and does not call for any interference. 7. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial Court has committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellants under section 323 and 323/34 of Indian Penal Code. 8. It is admitted fact that there was landed dispute in between the parties. On the day of incidence when Bhagwan Singh Rajput (PW-4) was returning back to his house carrying kerosene oil the appellants met with him near the house of Durjan Lodhi. Appellant Sumer Singh used filthy language against him and inflicted katama blow at his head. He ran away but fell down at the door of Thakurdas where he was beaten by appellants Arjun Singh and Chandan Singh by lathi blows, on account of which he sustained injuries. Appellant Sumer again tried to inflict katarna blow, but katarna was caught by Thakurdas. He ran away but fell down at the door of Thakurdas where he was beaten by appellants Arjun Singh and Chandan Singh by lathi blows, on account of which he sustained injuries. Appellant Sumer again tried to inflict katarna blow, but katarna was caught by Thakurdas. He was carried to the Police Station Naryawan where Babu Singh lodged report (Ex. P-4), which was written by Omkar Prasad. Thereafter injured Bhagwan Singh Rajput was sent for medical examination, who was examined by Dr. C. K. Dubey (PW-9) and found six injuries on his person. According to his opinion these injuries were caused by hard and blunt object within 12 hours of his examination. He was also advised for X-ray and was admitted in Civil Hospital, Sagar. Medical report is Ex.P-12. Dr. Ajay Kumar Badoniya (PW-7) treated the injured in the hospital. Bed Head Ticket is Ex.P-8, which contains his signature. His X-ray was taken by Dr. Jinesh Diwakar (CW-1), who found hairline fracture in the parietal bone. X-ray report is Ex. C-1 and X-ray plate is Ex. C-2 to C-5. Thus the evidence of injured Bhagwan Singh Rajput is corroborated by medical evidence. 9. Thakurdas (PW-2) and Babu Singh (PW-3) both have supported the version of injured Bhagwan Singh Rajput. They have clearly stated that appellants caused injuries to Bhagwan Singh Rajput. They have given the evidence in great detail in this regard and in spite of lengthy and piercing cross-examination, nothing has been brought on record to discredit their testimony on the material point regarding causing of injuries to Bhagwan Singh Rajput. Their presence at the spot is not doubtful, hence there is nothing to disbelieve their statements. Thus they have also supported the fact that the appellants caused injuries to Bhagwan Singh Rajput. 10. The trial Court discussed the evidence in great detail and came to the conclusion that the incident took place at two places. First near the house of Durjan Lodhi and second at the house of Thakurdas (PW-2). The trial Court found that Bhagwan Singh Rajput (PW-4) himself inflicted gupti blow to appellant Sumer Singh on account of which he sustained injury, therefore in self-defence injury of katarna was caused by him to Bhagwan Singh Rajput, hence the trial Court found that appellant Sumer Singh was justified in exercising his right of private defence causing such injury to Bhagwan Singh Rajput. He did not find them guilty for the first incident and acquitted them from the charge under sections 307, 307/34 of Indian Penal Code, but the trial Court found them guilty for second incident, which occurred at the house of Thakurdas. 11. No doubt there is sufficient material evidence against the appellants that appellants Arjun Singh and Chandan Singh inflicted lathi blows to Bhagwan Singh Rajput on account of which he sustained the injuries and appellant Sumer Singh also tried to inflict katarna blow, but the same was caught and thus there was common intention of Sumer Singh with other appellants for causing voluntarily hurt to Bhagwan Singh Rajput. The ocular evidence of the prosecution is amply supported by the medical evidence, therefore the trial Court has found them guilty under sections 323, 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and there is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in such finding, hence such finding is hereby affirmed. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellant Sumer Singh has suffered jail sentence of more than one month and appellants Arjun Singh and Chandan Singh have also suffered jail sentence of more than 15 days, therefore they should be released on the period already undergone by them. 13. It is bone out from the record that appellant Sumer Singh also sustained the injury by gupti-sharp edged weapon in the same incident. He also lodged a report Ex.D-5C against Bhagwan Singh Rajput. He was also medically examined and one incised wound was found on his right arm. There was counter case against Bhagwan Singh Rajput also. 14. Thus both the parties suffered injuries in this incident Appellant Arjun Singh is near about 80 years of age. He is an old person. The incident is of the year 1999 that is to say near about 10 years back. Nothing has been brought on record that the appellants were earlier convicted or had past criminal record. They are agriculturists and have suffered the incarceration of the period hereinabove stated. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in sending them back to jail. Their sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months deserves to be reduced, but with enhancement of fine. 15. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is partly allowed. They are agriculturists and have suffered the incarceration of the period hereinabove stated. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in sending them back to jail. Their sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months deserves to be reduced, but with enhancement of fine. 15. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is partly allowed. Conviction of appellants Arjun Singh and Chandan Singh under section 323 of Indian Penal Code and appellant Sumer Singh under section 323/34 of Indian Penal Code is hereby maintained. However their sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them with enhancement of fine to Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) each excluding the amount already deposited by them. The enhanced amount be paid within two months hence, failing which they shall suffer S.I. for two months each. Out of the fine amount so deposited, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- be paid to Bhagwan Singh Rajput s/o Kanai Singh Rajput, resident of Village Kanchari, PS Naryawali District Sagar by way of compensation under section 357(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.