Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 390 (MP)

Kapil v. State of M. P.

2015-04-07

M.C.GARG

body2015
ORDER 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants, who have been convicted under sections 307 and 307 read with 34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each. 2. While appellant No.1 Kapil is in custody for about two years, the other appellants are on bail, who have also undergone rigorous imprisonment for three months or so. 3. Case of the prosecution in actual is that the appellant No.1 caused grievous injuries to the complainant with a sword besides abusing him and the other appellants assisted the appellant No.1 in causing those injuries. 3. Case of the prosecution in actual is that the appellant No.1 caused grievous injuries to the complainant with a sword besides abusing him and the other appellants assisted the appellant No.1 in causing those injuries. In actual, it is a case of the prosecution : - “2- izdj.k esa LohÑr rF; ;g gS fd vk’kh’k feJk] jes’k dqekj] y[kuyky] vkn’kZ cyjke rFkk eukst vfHk;qDr dfiy cksgjs ,oa jk/ks’;ke dks igpkurs gSaA ;g rF; Hkh LohÑr gS fd vfHk;qDr dfiy dks izn’kZ ih&5 ds vuqlkj fxjrkj fd;k x;k FkkA 3- vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls izLrqr izdj.k ds rF; la{ksi esa bl izdkj gSa fd Qfj;knh vk’kh’k ?kVuk fnukad 17-10-2009 dks chuk dEI;wVj lsaVj ls okfil vius ?kj vkdj vius nksLr vkn’kZ pkScs ds ;gka tk jgk FkkA nksigj djhc 1%15 cts vfHk;qDr dfiy d”;i rFkk jk/ks’;ke ,d jk; gksdj vk,] mlh le; dfiy cksgjs ryokj fy, gq, FkkA mlus Qfj;knh ls dgk eknj rsjh yM+dh pksnsa] rwus esjs f[kykQ xokgh nh gSA mlus xkyh nsus ls euk fd;k rks jk/ks’;ke rFkk d’;i cksgjs us mls idM+ fy;k rFkk dfiy cksgjs us tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls mlds flj esa rhu ryokj ekjh ftlls dVdj [kwu fudyus yxkA nksckjk dfiy us Qfj;knh dh duiVh esa ryokj ls pksV igq¡pkbZA blds ckn fQj ls dfiy us ryokj dk okj fd;k] tks Qfj;knh us vius gkFk ls jksd fy;kA blls mls ck,a gkFk ds vaxwBs esa [kwu fudyus yxkA mlds nkfgus da/ks esa Hkh pksV vkbZA mlds fpYykus ij vkn’kZ pkScs] cyjke] eukst rFkk y[ku us vkdj chp cpko fd;k] ftUgsa ns[kdj rhuksa vfHk;qDrx.k Hkkx x,A blds ckn vkn’kZ o cyjke us mls eksVj lkbZfdy esa fcBkdj Fkkus igq¡pk;kA rnuqlkj ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ izn’kZ ih&1 ntZ dh xbZA 4- vUos”k.k ds nkSjku ?kVukLFky dk uD’kk izn’kZ ih&2 ,oa izn’kZ ih&5 cukdj ?kVukLFky ls [kwu vkywnk ,oa lknk feêh tIr dh xbZA Qfj;knh vk’kh’k dk fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k izn’kZ ih&17 ds vuqlkj djk;k x;kA vfHk;qDr dfiy ds eseksjsaMe izn’kZ ih&6 ds vuqlkj ,d ryokj tIr djrs gq, izn’kZ ih&7 dk tIrh i=d cuk;k x;kA tIr’kqnk laifÙk ijh{k.k ds fy, fofèk&fo/kku iz;ksx’kkyk Hkstdj izn’kZ ih&14 dh fjiksVZ izkIr dh xbZA vkgr vk’kh’k dh csMgsM fVdV rFkk fMLpktZ fVdV izkIr dh xbZA Qfj;knh lfgr vU; lk{khx.k ds dFku ntZ fd, x,A bl rjg vko’;d vUos’k.k mijkar vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo#) /kkjk 307] 294] 341@34 Hkk-na-la- rFkk /kkjk 25@27 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds vijk/k esa ;g vfHk;ksx i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA** 4. Charges levelled against the appellants were all denied by them. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellant No.3 Radheshyam is aged about 65 years, whereas appellant No.1 Kapil being already undergone rigorous imprisonment for two years, is entitled to be released on a period already undergone by him. It is also submitted that the offence for which the appellants can be convicted can fall only within the purview of section 326 of the IPC, as neither the doctor has appointed that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the normal course and in fact, even the Investigating Officer has in his statement stated that on investigation from the neighbours, it was found that no such incident has taken place. Some of the defence witnesses also stated in defence that there seems to be false implication. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and having examined the judgment cited at bar in the case of Neelam Bahal and another v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2010(2) SCC 229 , and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Sakharam Nagre v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2013(2) CCSC 621 (SC). It is stated that in the case, the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any common intention of the appellants. 6. Considering all the facts of the case and submissions made on behalf of the appellants, we agree to enhance the compensation to be paid by the petitioners to the victim. I, therefore, maintain the conviction of the appellants, but modify the sentence imposed upon them to the extent that all the appellants would be sentenced to the period already undergone by them subject to the payment of Rs.30,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- respectively as fine to be deposited by the appellants, which shall be paid to the victim as compensation. If the payment of fine is not made, then the appellants will have to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 7. Till the payment is made, the bail bonds of the appellants will remain in existence. 8. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.