Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 948 (MP)

SAMBHOO PRASAD SAHU v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2009-08-07

SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANTS have preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and order of sentence passed by Special Judge, Mandla in Special Case No. 36/01, decided on 9. 3. 02. ( 2. ) APPELLANTS have been convicted under Section 448 and 323 of IPC, on two counts for causing hurt to Rukmani choudhary and Parimal Bishvas, and each of them sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 600/-, in default simple imprisonment for two months, for the offence under Section 448 of IPC and a fine of rs. 800/- on each count under Section 323 of IPC, in default simple imprisonment for three months, by the impugned judgment. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, on 13. 10. 2000 about 5:00 P. M. at village Linga Poundi, when complainant Rukmani choudhary, a member of Scheduled Caste was alone in her rented house, her husband having gone for outing, appellants Sambhu and Chhigga, the landlords entered into her room, began uttering obscene abuses and asked her to vacate the house. Appellants also abused her by caste and pushed her, as a result of which she sustained injury in her back. By that time, the husband of Rukmani choudhary also came there, then appellants caused hurt to her husband, Parimal Bishvas as well. Appellants also threatened him that if he did not vacate the house, they would kill them. The FIR of the incident was lodged by complainant Rukmani Choudhary at police Station Harijan Kalyan Kendra, Mandla on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellants and was investigated. After due investigation, appellants were prosecuted under Section 294, 506, 448, 323/34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atorcity) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as act ). After commitment of the case, appellants were put to trial before the Special Court, Mandla. ( 4. ) APPELLANTS denied the various charges framed against them under Section 448, 294, 323, 506 Part II of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and pleaded false implication. According to appellants, a civil suit for eviction of the complainant and her husband from the tenanted premises and recovery of rent was filed against them by the appellants; as such they were falsely implicated. ( 5. According to appellants, a civil suit for eviction of the complainant and her husband from the tenanted premises and recovery of rent was filed against them by the appellants; as such they were falsely implicated. ( 5. ) LEARNED Special Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, acquitted the appellants of the charges under Section 294, 506 Part II of IPC and section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, but found them guilty under Section 448 and 323 of IPC for causing hurt to Rukmani Choudhary and Parimal bishvas and sentenced them as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 6. ) APPEAL is preferred inter alia on the ground that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellants under Section 448 and 323 of IPC in absence of any independent corroborative evidence and the medical evidence. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellants. ( 8. ) PERUSED the evidence on record. P. W-1 Rukmani choudhary deposed in her evidence that she was a tenant in the house of the appellants and on 13. 10. 2000 about 5:00 P. M. , when she was alone in her house, both the appellants entered into her house, abused her and asked her to vacate the house, as also pushed her causing injury on her back. According to rukmani Choudhary (P. W-1), upon hue and cry, her husband parimal Bishvas and one Mukesh also came to her rescue. P. W-1 rukmani Choudhary further deposed that appellants also gave beating to her husband by kicks and fists and intimidated them. The FIR of the incident (Ex. P-1) was also lodged by her, which was recorded by Inspector Ratnesh Singh (P. W-6 ). ( 9. ) P. W-2 Parimal Bishvas, who is the husband of complainant, also deposed in his evidence that on 13. 10. 2000 about 5:00 P. M. , when he came back home, he found that his wife was weeping and the appellants were inside the house, abusing his wife and asking her to vacate the house. He also deposed that appellants had pushed his wife as well as assaulted him and intimidated them. 10. 2000 about 5:00 P. M. , when he came back home, he found that his wife was weeping and the appellants were inside the house, abusing his wife and asking her to vacate the house. He also deposed that appellants had pushed his wife as well as assaulted him and intimidated them. P. W-3 Amar Singh has also corroborated the fact that he heard the noise of some quarrel from the house of complainant Rukmani Choudhary and appellants were also seen inside her house altercating with her husband. ( 10. ) THE aforesaid witnesses were extensively cross-examined, but there are no cogent reasons to believe the evidence of complainant Rukmani Choudhary (P. W-1) and her husband Parimal Bishvas (P. W-2) to the effect that both the appellants had entered in the house of complainant, abused her and asked them to vacate the house. ( 11. ) ALTHOUGH, P. W-1 Rukmani Choudhary, her husband parimal Bishvas (P. W-2) have been confronted with their police statements (Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2 respectively) with regard to omission of the certain facts stated before the court during their deposition, but the omissions are not such so as to discard their version that appellants had entered into the house of the complainant, abused her, pushed her and assaulted her husband, when he reached there. The aforesaid facts also stood corroborated to certain extent by the evidence of P. W-3 Amar Singh. There are no reasons to infer that appellants have been falsely implicated. ( 12. ) ALTHOUGH, Dr. R. K. Pahariya (P. W-7) did not find any external injury on the medical examination of complainant Rukmani choudhary (P. W-1) and her husband Parimal Bishvas (P. W-2), but he specifically stated in his evidence that both of them had complained of pain on their back. Needless to point out, that bodily pain is also covered in the definition of "hurt" under Section 319 of IPC. ( 13. ) IN fact, in view of the evidence as available on record, the conviction of the appellant under Section 448 of IPC, as also under Section 323 of IPC on two counts for causing hurt to rukmani Choudhary and Parimal Bishvas, does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant any interference in appeal. ( 14. ( 13. ) IN fact, in view of the evidence as available on record, the conviction of the appellant under Section 448 of IPC, as also under Section 323 of IPC on two counts for causing hurt to rukmani Choudhary and Parimal Bishvas, does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant any interference in appeal. ( 14. ) AS regards the sentence, the trial court has already adopted a lenient view and sentenced the appellants with fine only, which is not exorbitant so as to call for any interference. Thus, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.