Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 819 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Khelan Bai W/o Shobhelal

2010-08-11

G.S.SOLANKI

body2010
JUDGMENT G.S. Solanki, J. 1. Learned Judicial Magistrate I Ind Class, Balaghat has passed the impugned judgment dated 3.8.1994 in Criminal Case No. 788 of 1991 whereby he acquitted the respondent-Khelan Bai wife of Shobhelal from the charges punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved, State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal against the acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Prosecution case, in short, was that on 26.10.1991 at about 10 a.m., respondent-accused, Khelen Bai enquired from complainant, Omwati Bai regarding dispute occurred between their husbands in the last night. Complainant replied that she did not have any knowledge about the dispute then Khelan Bai told her whether it is possible that you have no knowledge about the dispute. Then she abused, caught hold her hairs, beaten her by fist and threw her on the ground thereby she received the injuries on head, abdomen and back side of the body. The incident was witnessed by Shanker Lodhi and others. Complainant, Omwati Bai rushed to the Police Station Kirnapur. Her report was recorded on Rojnamcha Shana 949/1991. Doctor found fracture in superior pubic ramica bone. On receiving the medical report crime under Section 325 was registered against the respondent/accused vide Exh.P-3. After investigation respondent/accused, Khelan Bai was charge-sheeted. 3. Learned trial court framed the charges under Section 325 of the Indian Penal code against the respondent/accused. She abjured her guilt and pleaded that her husband Shobhelal was servant in the house of father-in-law of complainant and there was a dispute of money between them. She further stated that on the date of incident, Omwati Bai having sickle came to her house and beaten her. 4. After appraisal of the evidence on record, learned trial court acquitted the respondent/accused to the charges leveled against her, hence this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the trial court committed error in appreciating the evidence on record, therefore, finding recorded by the trial court is perverse, contrary to law and liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that finding recorded by the trial court is according to law and there is no perversity or illegality. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. I perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that finding recorded by the trial court is according to law and there is no perversity or illegality. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. I perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record. It is well settled in law that if two views are possible from the record, view found in favour of the accused should be adopted. 8. Complainant, Omwati Bai stated that when she was in a way of her field, respondent/accused, Khelan Bai enquired from her about the dispute occurred between their husbands in night. W hen complainant replied that she did not know about the dispute. On this point of time, respondent-Khelan Bai caught hold her hairs, beaten her by fist and pushed her, on mango tree as a result of which she fell down and became unconscious. She narrated the incident to his father-in-law, Bhadulal (P.W.6) and they lodged the report in Police Station. 9. Dr. N.P. Tamrakar (P.W.2) who examined Omwati Bai stated that she complained the pain in chest, abdomen and back side but he did not find any external injury on her body. He referred her for X-ray of abdomen, to the District Hospital, Balaghat. His report is Exh.P-1. In his cross examination, he admitted that he did not find any abrasion in the back portion of the complainant. Dr. K.K. Khosla (P.W.7) on X-ray examination found fracture on superior pubic ramica bone of complainant. He admitted that such type of fracture can be caused when the patient fell down on the ground. 10. In these circumstances, version of complainant is corroborated by medical evidence and further corroborated by FIR Exh.P-3 and Shana report. It is proved that the complainant Omwati Bai received injuries during incidence. 11. On the contrary, defense witness Preetam Lal (D.W.1) stated that when he was going towards his field he saw that complainant Omwati Bai assaulted Khelan Bai by Sickle and her father-in-law had also beaten Khelan Bai. Shobhelal (D.W.2), husband of Khelan Bai also stated that his wife complained him that complainant Omwati Bai beaten her. He admitted that he tried to report the matter but the Police did not record his report. Yadav Lal (D.W. 3) also supported the version of other defense witnesses and stated that the respondent Khelan Bai was beaten by complainant. Shobhelal (D.W.2), husband of Khelan Bai also stated that his wife complained him that complainant Omwati Bai beaten her. He admitted that he tried to report the matter but the Police did not record his report. Yadav Lal (D.W. 3) also supported the version of other defense witnesses and stated that the respondent Khelan Bai was beaten by complainant. Though defense witnesses Preetam Lal, Shobhelal and Yadav lal cross examined by Assistant Public Prosecuted but nothing brought on their cross examination to disbelieve them. 12. In these circumstances, it is proved that that there was a quarrel between the complainant and respondent. Both of them beaten each other. In this process, respondent pushed Omwati Bai thereby she fell down on the ground and got fracture of superior pubic ramica bone. Though Omwati Bai, tried to improve her version before the court regarding fact that she was thrown on mango tree but this fact did not find place in FIR. It shows that she exaggerated the fact before the court. 13. After considering the injuries of the complainant learned trial court recorded the finding that the injuries received by complainant was not voluntary caused by accused but that was caused in her self defence and thereby acquitted the respondent/accused Khelan Bai to the charges under Section . 14. On considering the facts and circumstances, I am also of the opinion that fracture version of defense witnesses, it is proved that there was free fight between the complainant and accused, Khelan Bai and during the course of fighting accused Khelan Bai pushed complainant on the ground thereby she fell down and received the injury. Since, complainant also gave blow on back of accused, accused have right to defend her person, in exercising of that right. If she pushed her to ground thereby she received injuries, it cannot be said that accused accorded her right of private defence. 15. In these circumstances, finding recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal which warrants interference of this Court in the appeal against acquittal. Therefore, appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. As respondent/accused is on bail, her bail bond stands cancelled.