Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 20 (MP)

Madhu @ Madaliya v. State of M. P.

2015-01-06

ALOK VERMA

body2015
ORDER 1. This criminal appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur in Sessions Trial No.83/2010 by judgment dated 22.11.2010 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the present appellant guilty under sections 341 and 307 of IPC and convicted him to 7 years RI and fine of Rs.1000/- under section 307 of IPC and fine of Rs.200/- under section 341 of IPC. He was further directed to undergo two months additional imprisonment in default of payment of fine imposed on him under section 307 of IPC and Simple Imprisonment of 8 days for default of payment of fine under section 341 of IPC. 2. The prosecution story before the lower Court was that on 20.2.2010 at about 7:00 p.m., when the complainant/injured Edla Son of Nanbhai was coming from Nanpur, where he went to attend some ceremony in the house of his relative Hamji, to his village Chikhalkui, the accused Madaliya stopped him near his (the accused) house and with an intention to kill him, he shot an arrow on him with help of bow and arrow which hit him on his left chest. The arrow head was left inside the chest and the wooden portion of the arrow fell down. The co-accused Bahadursingh, who was subsequently acquitted by the lower Court, also came there with ‘Faliya’ in his hand and also threatened to kill him. When he raised alarm, the prosecution witnesses Lalu and his (injured’s) wife Ralibai reached on the spot to whom, the injured narrated the incident. Subsequently, at about 11:15 p.m., the matter was reported to the Police Station – Nanpur, District – Alirajpur where Crime No.33/2010 was registered under sections 341 and 307/34 of IPC. 3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after recording the evidence of the prosecution and the defence, found the present appellant guilty under sections 307 and 341 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. 4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, this appeal is filed on the grounds, inter alia, that there was no independent witness and, therefore, the lower Court erred in relying solely on the testimony of the injured person. The FIR was lodged with delay, which makes the case of the prosecution suspicious. 4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, this appeal is filed on the grounds, inter alia, that there was no independent witness and, therefore, the lower Court erred in relying solely on the testimony of the injured person. The FIR was lodged with delay, which makes the case of the prosecution suspicious. There was no motive for the present appellant to shoot the complainant with bow and arrow and the present appellant was falsely implicated in the case. During the arguments, it was also prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sentence imposed on the present appellant is disproportionate and he prays that it should be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. To see, whether the inferences drawn by the lower Court are reasonable or perverted, we may refer the statement of the complainant Edla (PW1) before the lower Court. In his statement, he said that the present appellant shoot him with bow and arrow. The arrow pierced inside his left chest. The arrow head remained inside the wound and back wooden portion fell down. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that during the cross examination, he gave varying statement in respect of the place of the incident. However, in paragraph 6, he said that the incident took place on the road near the house of the appellant and similarly, he stated the same fact in paragraph 4 of his statement. Learned counsel for the appellant also argues that when the incident took place, it was pitch dark and, therefore, it was not possible for the complainant to identify the assailant. However, as stated in the FIR Ex.P1, the incident took place at about 7:00 p.m. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that in the month of February, night falls early and, therefore, at 7:00 o’clock, darkness fell down in the rural area. 6. However, in the present case, the assailant was known to the complainant. It is also true that rural people are adjusted to darkness and in dark also, they recognize the known persons and, therefore, so far as the identity of the assailant is concerned , there can be no doubt that the complainant identified the assailant as his name was also mentioned in the FIR. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant also argues that the FIR was lodged with the delay of 4 hours. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant also argues that the FIR was lodged with the delay of 4 hours. However, the Police Station is about 19 k.m. Far from the place of the incident. The complainant was seriously injured with arrow still inside his wound. It is explained in the FIR itself that to arrange the vehicle to shift him to the Police Station took some time. The FIR was lodged within 4 hours of the incident and that cannot be considered as unreasonable delay. In this case, the statement of the complainant supported by his wife Ralibai (PW2) and also Lalu (PW3), whose presence was also mentioned in the FIR. Further the averments made in the FIR are supported with the medical evidence of Dr. Vijay Singh Baghel (PW4), who found the arrow inside the wound. He advised for the X-ray of the wound and in the X-ray also, the arrow was found inside the wound. This fact was narrated in the FIR and supported by the medical evidence. 8. Taking all these facts into consideration, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the finding of the lower Court. The conviction of the appellant under sections 307 and 341 of IPC does not suffer from any legal infirmity and, therefore, no interference in such finding is called for. 9. This brought us to the point of sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the sentence awarded to him is disproportionate and prays that it may be reduced to 5 years but, I find that looking to the injuries caused to the complainant, which was on the vital part of his body and also if, the arrow penetrates further inside his body, he would have died of the wound. However, the fact that only single injury was caused to the deceased and the appellant did not attempt further to hurt him may also be taken into consideration. Taking this fact into consideration, I find that the sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment awarded on him is likely on higher side and, therefore, it may be reduced to 6 years imprisonment in place of 7 years imprisonment. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The sentence awarded to the appellant is modified as above. With that modification, the appeal stands disposed of. Smt. Sharmila Sharma for appellant; Rahul Vijayvargiya, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.