Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1185 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Bharat Lal

2011-10-17

VIMLA JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 5-1-1995 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Seoni in Misc. Criminal Case No. 341/91, whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charge punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 3-12-1989 at about 10.00 o'clock, when Girjabai was having meal, some altercation took place between Girjabai and her daughter-in-law Dhanwantabai, then Bharatlal brother of Dhanwantabai caught hold of the hands of Girjabai and assaulted her by Chappal; as a result she sustained injuries. Immediately thereafter Girjabai lodged a report at Police Station, which was recorded in Rojnamcha SanhaNo. 95 by Man Singh (P.W. 5), Head Constable. She was sent for her medical examination. The doctor has advised her for X-ray. In X-ray her writ bone of left hand was found broken. On the basis of the medical and the X-ray report, Crime No. 279/89 under Section 325 of IPC was registered against the respondent at Police Station Barghat. The police took cognizance of the matter, prepared the map of the spot, recorded the statements of witness and arrested the accused. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni. 3. The accused abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. 4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses and the respondent examined two witnesses in his defence. After appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court did not find the respondent guilty under Section 325 of IPC and acquitted him from the charge levelled against him. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, after taking leave from this Court on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5. Shri P.K. Chourasia, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The prosecution amply proved that respondent caused injuries to the complainant Girjabai. Therefore, the finding of acquittal is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. lie prayed that the respondent should be punished. 6. On the contrary, Shri Narendra Nikhare, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. The Trial Court rightly acquitted him from the aforesaid charge. Hence no interference is called for. lie prayed that the respondent should be punished. 6. On the contrary, Shri Narendra Nikhare, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. The Trial Court rightly acquitted him from the aforesaid charge. Hence no interference is called for. The main point for consideration by this Court is that whether the Trial Court committed any error in acquitting the respondent from the charge, under Section 325 of the IPC? Girjabai (P.W.1) is an injured witness. She had given the evidence that when she was having meal, Bharatlal, brother of her daughter-in-law Dhanwantabai twisted her hand and beat her with Chappal before Sukratbai (P.W.2), Rajkumarand Ramkalabai (P.W.3). Before this incident, there was some quarrel between her and her daughter-in-law. She further stated that she lodged a report on Sunday. Thereafter, she was examined by doctor, her X-ray was taken in the hospital and fracture was found in her hand. 9. Sukratbai (P.W.2) and Ramkalabai (P.W.3) both supported the evidence of Girjabai (P.W.1). They clearly stated that respondent Bharatlal came and twisted the hand of Girjabai. They also stated that some quarrel took place between Girjabai and Dhanwantabai. 10. In the cross-examination of Girjabai (P.W.1), Sukratbai (P.W.2) and Ramkalabai (P.W.3), nothing could be elicited to discredit their testimony. 11. There is ample evidence to prove that respondent Bharatlal twisted the hand of Girjabai and caused her injuries. The victim immediately lodged the report at Police Station Barghat, which was recorded in Rojnamcha Sanha and Girjabai was sent for medical examination on the same day. 12. Dr. V.M. Jatar (P.W.4) medically examined her and found the following injuries on her person :- "(i) Deformity of left hand of the wrist by hard and blunt object. Advised for X-ray. (ii) Contusion on left cheek admeasuring 3" x I'/z" by hard and blunt object. Simple in nature. (iii) Contusion on left side of the back admeasuring 1" x W by hard and blunt object. Simple in nature. (iv) Complaint of pain on left side of the chest but no evidence of any injury seen. Simple in nature." According to his opinion, injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object within six hours. 13. Dr. V.M. Jatar (P.W.4) stated that he examined Girjabai in Primary Health Center, Barghat. He found four injuries on her person. (iv) Complaint of pain on left side of the chest but no evidence of any injury seen. Simple in nature." According to his opinion, injuries could have been caused by hard and blunt object within six hours. 13. Dr. V.M. Jatar (P.W.4) stated that he examined Girjabai in Primary Health Center, Barghat. He found four injuries on her person. He also found that her wrist bone of left hand was broken. He prepared report (Exh. P-l) and signed. The X-ray reports are Exh. P-2 and Exh. P-3. Thus, the doctor found injuries and fracture as stated hereinabove. 14. No doubt Dr. V.M. Jatar (P.W.4) has admitted in his cross-examination that the said injuries may be self inflicted or caused by fall, but there is sufficient evidence that the respondent caused these injuries to Girjabai. In such circumstances, it cannot be accepted that Girjabai herself inflicted or sustained these injuries by fall. 15. There are no material contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, hence there is no question to disbelieve them. Merely relationship of witnesses is not a ground to discard their evidence. Moreover, the incident being of day time in the house of Girjabai, there is every possibility that her daughter Ramkalabai (P.W.3) and her grand daughter Sukratbai (P.W.2) have seen this incident, their evidence is quite natural and inspires confidence. There is nothing to disbelieve the statements of injured witness Girjabai and eye-witnesses Sukratbai and Ramkalabai. Their evidence further finds support from medical evidence. Thus, the evidence proves the offence against the respondent. 16. The respondent has examined Sawanlal (D.W.1) and Rahman Khan (D.W.2). According to their evidence, respondent was posted in Bori Village as helper. His sister's husband came and asked him to send his sister with him otherwise he would beat him. They also stated that due to enmity, Girjabai falsely implicated him in this case. But this defence is not tenable for the simple reason that respondent Bharatlal did not lodge any report against his sister's husband. Hence the defence of respondent that he has been falsely implicated cannot be accepted. 17. On perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, it is manifestly clear that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Hence the defence of respondent that he has been falsely implicated cannot be accepted. 17. On perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, it is manifestly clear that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The Trial Court has given its finding rfierely on the basis of surmises and conjectures which are not sustainable in law hence the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside. 18. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 5-1-1995 passed by the Court below in Criminal Case No. 341/91 is hereby set aside and respondent Bharatlal is found guilty under Section 325 of IPC. 19. Learned Counsel for the respondent/accused submitted that respondent Bharatlal is 55 years of age and he has no previous criminal record. He is now leading peaceful life with his family as normal member of society. Hence jail sentence would badly affect him and his family. He prays that the respondent 'should be punished with fine only. 20. Learned Counsel for the appellant/State does not oppose the prayer of respondent's Counsel. 21. The incident occurred on 3-12-1989 and almost twenty two years passed since then. Respondent and complainant are related to each other. Respondent does not have any criminal record. It appears that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail. In these circumstances, the respondent/accused is punished with a fine amount of Rs. 8000/- for the offence under Section 325 of IPC. The said amount be deposited in the Trial Court within two months, failing which the respondent/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 22. In the result, this appeal is allowed on the terms indicated hereinabove. 23. The office is directed to send a copy of this judgment alongwith record to the Trial Court for information and compliance.