Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 381 (MP)

Kalu v. State of M. P.

2013-03-20

S.R.Waghmare

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This revision petition is filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the CrPC by petitioner Kalu being aggrieved by the order dated 18.1.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Dhar in Criminal Appeal No. 267/2012, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence under section 325 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- In case of default, the petitioner was to undergo additional one month’s rigorous imprisonment. 2. Brief facts necessary for the elucidation are that on the date of incident i.e. on 27.7.2007 at about 2.00 p.m. the petitioner Kalu along with co-accused Shyam and Shardabai was grazing the cattle near the field of complainant Santosh. When Santosh raised objection, the accused persons assaulted the complainant. Accused petitioner Kalu had beaten him by a knotted rope, due to which he received injury on his left eye and the co-accused persons had beaten the complainant by wooden sticks, due to which he received injuries on the head and back. Thereafter a report was lodged in the police station and the investigation was launched and accused was arrested. On completion of the investigation, the accused was duly charged for offence under section 325 of the IPC and put to his trial. 3. On committal, the accused abjured his guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. However, on considering the evidence, the trial Court has convicted the accused for offence under section 325 of the IPC as indicated hereinabove. Hence, the present revision. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently stressed the fact that it was a case of false implication. Counsel submitted that the mens-rea an essential ingredient of the offence to commit the crime has not been established by the prosecution. Counsel further submitted that the accused Kalu had reprimanded/slapped the child of complainant Santosh and hence, complainant Santosh had come on a bike which had slipped near a culvert, due to which he had received injuries. This defence has been corroborated by the doctor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the conviction is contrary to the principles of law. The Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. This defence has been corroborated by the doctor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the conviction is contrary to the principles of law. The Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, counsel prayed that the revision petition deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set-aside. In alternate counsel prayed that if the Court is satisfied regarding the conviction the custodial sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has submitted that the judgment of the lower Court is in accordance with law. He submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured Santosh are grievous in nature and he has lost his eyesight up to 30%. He further submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner. Hence, counsel submitted that the petitioner does not require any interference and the revision petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 6. On considering the above submissions, I find that the impugned judgment is based on valid and cogent reasons and proper marshalling of evidence and no infirmity can be found with the impugned judgment of the lower Court. I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the accused for offence under section 325 of the IPC. However, considering the alternate prayer of the counsel for the petitioner being limited and reasonable is allowed in the interest of justice. Thus, the custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount is further raised by Rs. 10,000/-, which shall be deposited by the accused petitioner in the trial Court and paid to the injured Santosh as compensation under section 357 of the CrPC within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. Needless to say any amount already paid as fine shall be adjusted. On failure to pay the fine within the stipulated period the petitioner shall undergo the remaining sentence as directed by the lower Court. 7. With the aforesaid modification the revision petition is partly allowed to the extent hereinabove indicated. The petitioner is in jail, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other offence under intimation in writing to this Court. 8. 7. With the aforesaid modification the revision petition is partly allowed to the extent hereinabove indicated. The petitioner is in jail, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other offence under intimation in writing to this Court. 8. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.