Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 977 (MP)

Ajaypal v. State of M. P.

2014-08-07

M.K.MUDGAL

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is finally heard at the motion stage. 2. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 23.6.2008 passed by the Court of Special Judge Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 2004 convicting the accused/appellants under section 323/34 of IPC and sentencing them with fine of Rs. 700/- each with default stipulation mentioned in the impugned judgment. 3. Prosecution story in nut-shell is that on the pretext of refusal of the complainant to go for labour along with appellants-accused on 31.6.2004, the appellants-accused on 6.6.2004 hurled filthy abuses at the complainant pertaining to his caste and beat him with kicks and fists. Hence, on the report of complainant a case under Section 323, 294 and 506/34 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of SC ST Act was registered against the appellants at PS Umri District Bhind. investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and charges were framed under Sections Section 323, 294 and 506/34 of IPC and 3 (1) (x) of SC ST Act. After recording statements of witnesses and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned court convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused for the offences as stated here in above. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by the learned trial court convicting the appellants/accused under section 323 of IPC are not just and proper as no medical examination was got conducted by the prosecution of injured Complainant Vinay Kumar Jatav (PW1), Naine Jatav (PW2) and Chhotelal (PW3) and without medical examination of the said victims, the appellants/accused could not have been convicted under section 323 of IPC. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellants have prayed for acquittal of the appellants. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the findings recorded by the learned trial court convicting the appellants under section 323 of IPC are based on proper reasonings as the victims. Complainant Vinay Kumar Jatav (PW1), Naine Jatav (PW2) and Chhotelal (PW3) have unequivocally deposed in their statements that they were beaten by the appellants with fists and kicks and shoes. Learned PL further submits that the eye witness Sher Singh (PW4) has also corroborated the statements of the injured. Complainant Vinay Kumar Jatav (PW1), Naine Jatav (PW2) and Chhotelal (PW3) have unequivocally deposed in their statements that they were beaten by the appellants with fists and kicks and shoes. Learned PL further submits that the eye witness Sher Singh (PW4) has also corroborated the statements of the injured. Further, it is not necessary in the eye of the law that without medical examination the appellants/accused could not be convicted under section 323 of IPC. As per the statements of the witnesses, they were beaten by kicks, fists and shoes. 6. In such circumstances, it was not necessary for them to get their injuries clinically examined. On the aforesaid grounds, learned PL further contends that the fine imposed by the trial court is also just and proper. Arguments were considered and record was perused. 7. It transpires from the learned trial court's record that all the three injured Complainant Vinay Kumar Jatav (PW1), Naine Jatav (PW2) and Chhotelal (PW3), have deposed in their statements that they were assaulted by the appellants/accused. The statements of the said witnesses are corroborated by (PW4). The submissions made on behalf of learned PL that the external injury is not necessary for convicting appellants/accused under section 323 of IPC appears tobe convincing. Therefore, it is concluded that the evidence produced by the prosecution on record was rightly considered by learned trial court and it has not made any error in convicting the appellants/accused under section 323 of IPC. So far as the fine imposed by learned trial court is concerned, each appellant was punished with a sum of Rs. 700/-. The said fine is not excessive. 8. Therefore, it is concluded that the learned trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellants/accused under section 323 of IPC and imposing the sentence of fine as stated earlier. The appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.