Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 513 (MP)

Ramsingh v. State of M. P.

2012-05-09

T.K.KAUSHAL

body2012
ORDER 1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 2nd December, 2010 passed by Sessions Judge Sehore in Criminal Appeal No. 167/2010 confirming the judgment of trial Court passed on 8th September, 2010 in Regular Criminal Case No.393/2004 convicting the petitioners under sections 325/34 and 506-II IPC and sentenced them to 6 months R.I and with fine of Rs.200/- for each offence and further convicting them under section 341 IPC and sentenced with fine of Rs.500/- 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 12/12/2004 at about 7.30 p.m. Babulal (PW-1) was going on motor cycle along with Suman Bai (PW-3) and Tara Bai (PW-5). On the way he was stopped by the petitioners, who were armed with Lathi and was assaulted by them. Babulal (PW-1) sustained as many as 6 injuries on his person. Babulal (PW-1) lodged FIR Ex.P-1 at police station- Icchawar. A case at Crime No. 345/2004 was registered against the petitioners and one Mukesh under sections 341, 323, 506, 341 IPC. Babulal (PW-1) was sent to Government Hospital for his medical examination. He was advised for X-ray. 3. After completing investigation, police submitted charge sheet against four accused persons in the Court of concerned Magistrate. Trial Court framed charges under sections 341, 325/34, 506-II IPC against the petitioners. Petitioners abjured guilt. Defence of the petitioners was that of false implication. To substantiate case of the prosecution, statements of Babulal (PW-1), Dr. R.S. Verma (PW-2), Suman Bai (PW-3), Mahesh Kapoor (PW-4), Tara Bai (PW-5), Manghilal (PW-6), and Dr. B.K. Chaturvedi (PW-7), were recorded. 4. After appreciating aforesaid evidence, Trial Court convicted and sentenced four accused persons under sections 341, 325/34, 506-II IPC. 5. Challenging the aforesaid judgment of trial Court, appeal was preferred by four accused persons. During pendency of appeal, Babulal (PW-1) submitted comprise petition in favour of one accused Mukesh and he was acquitted of the charges on the basis of compromise. Vide impugned judgment, petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as their appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court. 6. This revision has been preferred by the petitioners on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Conviction has been based on insufficient and doubtful evidence. Conviction is based on insufficient and doubtful evidence. Conviction is bad in law and sentence is harsh. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioners. This revision has been preferred by the petitioners on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Conviction has been based on insufficient and doubtful evidence. Conviction is based on insufficient and doubtful evidence. Conviction is bad in law and sentence is harsh. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioners. 7. In view of the evidence of Dr. R.S. Verma (PW-2) and Dr. B.K. Chaturvedi (PW-7) and further in view of the evidence of MLC report Ex.P-2 and X-ray report Ex.P-13, it remains no longer disputed that out of 6 injuries, there had been one grievous injury on the person of PW-1. 8. Babulal (PW-1) has categorically stated that his motor cycle was accosted by the petitioners and all of them surrounded and dealt lathi blows on him. Acquitted accused Mukesh was one of the assailants. Involvement of present three petitioners in the act of beating of PW-1 is apparently clear from the evidence of injured. It was the defence of the petitioners that injuries have been sustained by the injured by fall from motor cycle, but prosecution evidence is very much clear about injuries sustained by the act of the petitioners. Had he fell from motor cycle could be reason for sustaining injuries for PW-1 then there were two more persons sitting on the bike, they sustained no injuries at all. 9. As discussed above, I see no perversity in appreciation of evidence done by the Courts below and see no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the facts given by the Courts below in so far as conviction of the petitioners is concerned and hereby affirm conviction of the petitioners. 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have already suffered custody period of 27 days from 1/12/2010 to 27/12/2010. Further submitted that appellant no.3 Dhansingh was a young boy aged 18 years at the time of incident. No useful purpose would be served in sending the petitioners back to jail for this incident at this stage. 11. Further submitted that appellant no.3 Dhansingh was a young boy aged 18 years at the time of incident. No useful purpose would be served in sending the petitioners back to jail for this incident at this stage. 11. In view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and further in view of the fact that injured person has entered in compromise with one accused Mukesh on his own choice, jail sentence of already undergone period of 27 days, seems to be just, proper and sufficient, if fine amount is enhanced. Fine amount for offence under section 325 IPC is required to be enhanced from Rs.200/- to Rs.2000/-. 12. As discussed above, this revision is allowed in part on the point of sentence only. Conviction of the petitioners is affirmed. For offence under sections 325/34 and 506-II IPC, jail sentence of petitioners is reduced to already undergone period of 27 days. Fine sentence is enhanced under section 325 IPC from Rs.200/- to Rs.2000/-. For offence under sections 506-II and 341 IPC, fine sentence is maintained. In default of payment of fine the petitioners shall undergo 2 months simple imprisonment. 13. Petitioners are directed to remain present before the trial Court on or before 18th July, 2012 to deposit the balance fine amount or to undergo default sentence as the case may be. Revision is allowed in part.