Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 149 (MP)

Manka v. State of M. P.

2015-02-04

N.K.GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : N.K. Gupta, J. 1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 24.2.2006 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No.97/2005, whereby the appellants were convicted of offence under Section 324/34 and 323/34 of IPC and each sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and 1 year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/- respectively. Both the sentenced are to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 30.3.2005, a quarrel took place due to previous enmity between the parties. A calf of the complainant Sharda went in the Khalihaan of the appellant Manka and therefore, the appellant Manka gave a kick to calf. When the complainant Sharda prohibited him to do so then, he gave a threat to kill her. In the meantime, the appellant Budua came with an axe and gave a blow of axe on the head of the victim Sharda. Thereafter, Kamal (P.W.1) and Kesu (P.W.6) tried to save the victim Sharda then, the appellants assaulted the victims Kamal and Kesu also by sticks. Thereafter, they set the hut of the complainant on fire. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Bada Malhara and after due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Bijawar, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately, it was transferred to 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur. 3. The appellants abjured their guilt. According to them, the quarrel was initiated by the complainant herself and therefore, in defence Dr.K.P. Bamoriya (P.W.8) was recalled to prove the MLC report, Ex.D/6 of the appellant Manka. 4. Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted the appellants of offence under Section307 or 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 (2 counts) of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above. 5. Shri G.S. Thakur, Advocate from the panel of High Court Legal Services Authority, who has vast experience in criminal side is appointed for the appellants to argue the matter. Thereafter, heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. 6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the testimony of complainant Sharda (P.W.2) was duly corroborated by Kamal (P.W.1), Nannu (P.W.5), Munnu (P.W.7) and other eye witnesses. Thereafter, heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. 6. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the testimony of complainant Sharda (P.W.2) was duly corroborated by Kamal (P.W.1), Nannu (P.W.5), Munnu (P.W.7) and other eye witnesses. Their testimony is also corroborated by timely lodged FIR, Ex.P/14. Dr.K.P. Bamoriya examined the victims Sharda, Kesu and Kamal and gave his reports, Ex.P/11 to Ex.P/13. Corresponding injuries were found to the victims and therefore, their testimony is believable. It was found that the appellants have caused injuries to all the three victims. Out of them, injury caused to the victim Sharda, was caused by sharp cutting weapon. 7. The appellants have tried to set up a case of right of private defence but, there is no counter FIR filed by the appellants before the trial Court and therefore, it was not a case of right of private defence. Suggestions relating to right of private defence was not accepted by the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the appellants could not set up the case of right of private defence or a case of sudden or grave provocation. Hence, it is established that the appellants have voluntarily caused injuries to various victims Sharda, Kamal and Kesu and out of them, Sharda sustained an injury by a sharp cutting weapon. Hence, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 324/34 and 2 counts charges of offence under Section 323/34 of IPC. 8. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is informed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant Budua remained in the custody for 119 days, whereas the appellant Munka remained in the custody for 77 days during the trial. Both of them were the first offenders. Manka was father-in-law of the victim Sharda. All the victims sustained simple injuries, whereas injuries caused to the victims Sharda and Kesu were single blows. Also, the appellants have faced the trial and appeal for last 10 years. Looking to the overt- acts of the appellants, they could be released on imposition of fine. However, they have remained in the custody for more than 77 days. Under such circumstances, it would be improper, if their sentence is not reduced. Also, the appellants have faced the trial and appeal for last 10 years. Looking to the overt- acts of the appellants, they could be released on imposition of fine. However, they have remained in the custody for more than 77 days. Under such circumstances, it would be improper, if their sentence is not reduced. Consequently, it is a good case, in which sentence imposed against the appellants may be reduced to the period for which they remained in the custody. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants Manka and Budua is hereby partly allowed. Their conviction of offence under Sections 324/34 of IPC and two counts charges of offence under Section 323/34 of IPC is hereby maintained but, their sentence is reduced to the period for which they remained in the custody. There is no change in the fine amount. 10. Presence of the appellants is no more required before this Court and therefore, there is no need to issue warrants for summoning them before this Court. 11. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance.