Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 776 (MP)

DHANIRAM v. STATE OF M P

2009-07-07

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is directed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20. 1. 2000 passed by the II Add. Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Sessions trial No. 83/94 convicting him under Section 323 of the IPC with a direction to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of depositing such fine, further three months S. I has been awarded. ( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 15. 4. 94 at about 8 O clock in the morning at village Mador, Sudha (P. W. 4) was cleaning the house of her mother Rati Bai (P. W. 5 ). While doing so, the sigri (cooking gas) was broken due to that some exchange of abuse took place between them, consequently, said Sudha was beaten by the appellant, Subodh and Pawan by means of sticks and fists. When her mother Rati Bai came to rescue her, she was also subjected to beating by means of stick on her waist and leg by Dhaniram. Her son Vinod (P. W. 7) was also subjected to beating by appellant and Subodh by means of sticks on his head and legs. Immediately after the incident, victim Rati bai lodged the FIR in police outpost Chakarpur, Police Station Orchha, on which, offence under Sections 323,341,294 and 34 of IPC was registered against the appellant and two other accused persons. Victim Rati Bai, Vinod and Sudha were referred to hospital for their medical examination. P. W. 6 Dr. Lakhanlal ambedkar examined victims and prepared their MLC report. On examining victim Vinod vide Ex. P/10, he found one lacerated wound and four contusions. On examining victim Rati Bai vide Ex. P/11, he found four contusions while on the person of victim Sudha, vide Ex. P/12, he found one teeth bite, two contusions and one abrasion. ( 3. ) AFTER holding the investigation, appellant and other two accused Pawan and subodh were prosecuted for the offence under Section 323,341,294 and 34 of IPC. It is noted that initially the offence was registered under the aforesaid sections but after receiving the X-ray report and opinion of the doctor, the charge-sheet under section 307 IPC was also filed. ( 4. ) ON framing the charges against all the accused, they abjured the same, on which, the trial was held and evidence was recorded. It is noted that initially the offence was registered under the aforesaid sections but after receiving the X-ray report and opinion of the doctor, the charge-sheet under section 307 IPC was also filed. ( 4. ) ON framing the charges against all the accused, they abjured the same, on which, the trial was held and evidence was recorded. On appreciation of the evidence, except the appellant, other accused persons have been acquitted by the trial court while appellant has been convicted under Section 323 of IPC with the sentence as mentioned above. The same is challenged in this appeal. ( 5. ) SHRI Siddarth Datt, learned counsel, after taking me through the evidence led by the prosecution said that the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable as there was no distinguishable case against the appellant in comparison to the other acquitted accused. On the basis of the same set of evidence, after giving acquittal to other accused, this appellant could not be convicted by the trial court. On making some query regarding the act of the appellant, he concise his arguments saying that in the available facts and circumstances of the case if he is not acquitted from the alleged conviction, then taking into consideration the age of the appellant, he be extended the benefit of probation of Offenders Act or in any case his jail sentence be reduced up to the period for which he has already suffered the judicial custody between 25. 5. 94 to 228. 7. 94. In such premises, he prayed to allow the appeal accordingly. ( 6. ) THE aforesaid argument is rebutted by the State counsel Shri T. K. Modh, saying that the finding and the approach of the trial court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence and also is in conformity with law. The same does not require any interference at this stage either for acquittal or extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act or in any case, for reduction of the jail sentence. He said that the appellant has beaten his own mother, sister and brother and, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency with respect of the punishment. ( 7. ) HAVING heard the counsel, after perusing the record and the impugned judgment, I am of the considered view that the trial court has not committed any error in holding the appellant guilty for the alleged offence. ( 7. ) HAVING heard the counsel, after perusing the record and the impugned judgment, I am of the considered view that the trial court has not committed any error in holding the appellant guilty for the alleged offence. The victims, on their examination, supported the story putforth by the prosecution in the FIR. Their depositions are also supported by the evidence of the aforesaid doctor who examined and prepared their MLC report. In such premises, the finding of guilt recorded against the appellant is hereby affirmed. So far acquittal of the appellant with respect of causing injury to victim Sudha is concerned, the same appears to be based on proper appreciation of the evidence. ( 8. ) IT is undisputed fact on record that the alleged incident took place on 15. 4. 94 and thereafter more than 14 years have been passed. During this period, appellant had suffered the mental agony of the case along with the judicial custody of round about three months. So far extending the benefit of Probation of offenders Act is concerned, looking to the nature of the offence in which the appellant has beaten his own brother and mother, I do not find it fit to extend such benefit, However, I have found some substance in the prayer of the appellants counsel for reduction of the jail sentence. As such, after 14 years, I do not find it fit to send the appellant again to jail for facing the remaining jail sentence. Considering the over all circumstances of the case, the jail sentence award to the appellant is reduced from one year, up to the period for which he has already suffered the judicial custody by maintaining the fine amount imposed by the trial court. ( 9. ) IN view of aforesaid, the appeal is allowed in part. By affirming the findings recorded by the trial court against the appellant, his jail sentence is reduced to the period for which he has suffered the judicial custody by maintaining the fine amount as stated above. The bail bonds of the appellant are hereby discharged. ( 10. ) THE appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.