Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 875 (MP)

Kashiram v. State of M. P.

2009-07-29

S.SAMVATSAR

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) This judgment shall govern disposal of criminal appeal Nos. 134/2002, 141/2002 and 142/2002 as all these three appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 27.2.2002 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar in Sessions Trial No. 242/2001; whereby, the Sessions Court has convicted all the accused for commission of offence under section 148, 307/149, 326/149 and 323/149 of IPC and sentenced the appellant for commission of offence under section 307/149 of IPC for five years RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each, for commission of offence under section 326/149 of IPC for three years RI with a fine of Rs. 500.00 each, for commission of offence under section 323/149 of IPC for 1 year RI and for commission of offence under section 148 of IPC for six months RI. ( 2. ) The prosecution story in brief is that Krishnabai (PW/13) is wife of accused No. 8 Kalyan S/o. Mangilal. All other accused are the parents and family members of accused Krishnabai. Thus, all of the accused are in near relation of Krishnabai. Krishnabai started residing with Ramesh (PW/1) as his wife after leaving accused Kalyan, due to which there was enmity between family members of Krishna with Ramesh. ( 3. ) On 26.3.2001, accused caught hold of Ramesh and caused injuries by axe, farsa, lathi and lohangi. Ramesh fell down due to the injuries. In this quarrel, Devilal caused injury on the head and left leg of Ramesh by farsa, accused Chironji caused injury on head of Ramesh by axe. Accused Kashiram caused injury on the head of Ramesh by lohangi. Accused Gangaram caused injury by ballum on the left hand of Ramesh. Accused Harveer caused injury by lathi to Ramesh. When Laturibai (PW/5) and Sitaram (PW/2), who were mother and brother of Ramesh tried to rescue him, Mangilal, Amola and other accused caused injuries to them by Lathi, Devilal caused injury to Laturibai by farsa. At that time when Vijay Raghuvanshi (PW/3) and Ghanshyam (PW/4) intervened, accused ran away from the spot. ( 4. ) The report of this incident was lodged by Ramesh, his mother and brother. All of them were injured. On the basis of this report, crime No. 41/01 was registered against the accused. At that time when Vijay Raghuvanshi (PW/3) and Ghanshyam (PW/4) intervened, accused ran away from the spot. ( 4. ) The report of this incident was lodged by Ramesh, his mother and brother. All of them were injured. On the basis of this report, crime No. 41/01 was registered against the accused. The injured were sent for medical exarnination and the police after investigation filed challan against the accused for commission of offence under section 148,307/149,326/149,323/149 of IPC. The accused denied the allegations made against them. The matter was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court after recording the statement of witnesses from both the sides and appreciating the same, convicted the appellants as stated above. Hence, this appeal. ( 5. ) The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that as Krishnabai (PW/13) was in illegal confinement of Ramesh, the accused attacked them and caused injuries. Hence no offence is made out by the appellants and therefore, the Court below has committed error in convicting the appellants. ( 6. ) On the other hand counsel for the State supported the impugned judgments and the conviction of the appellants. ( 7. ) The prosecution to prove its case has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Ramesh (PW/1) who is an injured eye witnesses in his statement has stated that house of Kalyan is near to his house and his field is also near his field. According to him Krishnabai was harassed by her in-laws. According to him, the parental family of Krishnabai was wanting to sell Krishnabai to another place, hence, Krishnabai came to his house and started residing with him. He further says that Krishnabai came to his house 9 months prior to the incident and was residing with him as his wife. On that there was enmity between him and the accused. On the date of incident, he was cutting the wheat. At that time his mother Laturibai and brother Sitaram and Krishnabai were also present there. It was about 3 p.m. At that time, all the accused reached the spot and caused injuries to him, his mother and brother. ( 8. ) From the statement of this witness, it is clear that Krishnabai was residing with him as his wife for last nine months. Krishnabai was married to Kalyan, hence there was enmity between them. It was about 3 p.m. At that time, all the accused reached the spot and caused injuries to him, his mother and brother. ( 8. ) From the statement of this witness, it is clear that Krishnabai was residing with him as his wife for last nine months. Krishnabai was married to Kalyan, hence there was enmity between them. Statement of Sitaram (PW/ 2) is corroborated with the statement of Ramesh (PW/1). Vijaysingh (PW/3) is also a brother of Ramesh. Ghanshyam (PW/4) is a neighbour of Vijaysingh (PW/3). He says that Krishnabai W/o Kalyan was residing with Ramesh as his wife. He has heard cries on the date of incident and the accused caused injures to Ramesh and Laturibai. ( 9. ) Dr. S.B. Jamuria (PW/8) has examined Laturibai after the incident. He found as many as six injuries on the body of Laturibai and all the six injuries were found to be simple in nature. Tins witness has also examined Sitaram and found eight simple injury on his body. Ramesh (PW/1) was also examined by this doctor. As per this doctor, Ramesh sustained as many as 13 injuries, out of which injuries No. 1,2 and 7 were caused by sharp and edged weapon, injuries No. 4 and 5 by pointed weapon and other injuries were by hard and blunt object. He has referred the injury No. 1 to 4 for x-ray. The other injuries were simple in nature. This witness has also examined accused Kashirarn, who has sustained three injuries. Injury No. 1 and 3 on the body ofKashiram were caused by hard and blunt object and injury No. 2 by sharp and edged weapon. All the injuries were simple in nature. He has also examined accused Devilal, who has sustained six injuries. All the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. ( 10. ) Dr. Sitaram Singh Raghuvanshi (PW/9) has performed the x-ray of Laturibai (PW/5) and found one fracture in tibia fibula bone. He has also performed the x-ray of Sitaram (PW/2) and found no fracture on the body of Sitaram. He has also performed the x-ray of Rameh (PW/1) and found one fracture in his ulna bone. ( 11. ) Thus, from the entire evidence, it appears that except one injury to Ramesh (PW/1) and one injury on the body of Laturibai (PW/5) all the injuries were simple in nature. He has also performed the x-ray of Rameh (PW/1) and found one fracture in his ulna bone. ( 11. ) Thus, from the entire evidence, it appears that except one injury to Ramesh (PW/1) and one injury on the body of Laturibai (PW/5) all the injuries were simple in nature. Ramesh (PW/1) has sustained one fracutre in unla bone while Laturibai (PW/5) sustained one fracture in tibia fibula bone. None of the injury was found to be sufficient to casue death. ( 12. ) Another important witness is Krishnabai (PW/13) who says that she was forcibly taken by Ramesh (PW/1) and Ramesh has also forced her to reside with him as wife for about 3-4 months. This witness is declared hostile by the prosecution. Thus, from the entire evidence, it appears that there was quarrel between two groups over the custody of Krishnabai (PW/13) who was wife of accused Kalyan and was residing with Ramesh (PW/1) in which Ramesh, Sitaram and Laturibai received injuries on the side of complainant party. While Kashiram and Devilal were injured on the side of accused. None of the injuries on the body of Ramesh, Sitaram and Laturibai was found to be dangerous to life. ( 13. ) After perusal of the entire evidence on record, I find that in the FIR there are no allegations against accused Kalyan and Tulsiram, even their names are not mentioned in the FIR. In the statements of witnesses i.e. Ramesh (PW/1), Sitaram (PW/2) and Vrjay Singh (PW/3) also it appears that these witnesses have not alleged any overt act against these two accused and they have not assigned any role to these two accused. In such circumstances, conviction of accused Kalyan and Tulsiram for commission of offence under section 148,307/149,326/149 and 323/149 of IPC cannot be maintained and is set aside. ( 14. ) So far as, other appellants are concerned offence under section 307/ 149 of IPC is not made out against them and their conviction under the said offence is set aside. They are found guilty of commission of offence under section 148,326/149 and 323/149 of IPC. ( 15. ( 14. ) So far as, other appellants are concerned offence under section 307/ 149 of IPC is not made out against them and their conviction under the said offence is set aside. They are found guilty of commission of offence under section 148,326/149 and 323/149 of IPC. ( 15. ) From a perusal of record, it appears that accused Devilal has undergone 19 months of imprisonment, Kashiram has undergone 18 months of imprisonment, Mangilal has undergone 18 months of imprisonment, Gangaram has undergone 14 months of imprisonment, Amoia bis undergone 17 months of imprisonment, accused Chironji has undergone 21 months of imprisonment. Hence, their sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them. They are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged. All the appeals are allowed in part.