Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 207 (MP)

Ganesh Yadav v. State of M. P.

2016-03-09

SUBHASH KAKADE

body2016
ORDER 1. This criminal appeal is filed under the provision of section 374(2) of CrPC (hereinafter shall be referred as 'the Code') by the appellants against the impugned judgment dated 24.11.1997 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No.102/1996 whereby they have been convicted under section 307 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 3.6.1996 in the night at about 3.15 a.m. when complainant Bhagwandas @ Guddu was sleeping at his home, appellants Ganesh Yadav and Gaya Prasad Yadav came over there and call the complainant to accompany them for theft of fencing wire. Some dispute arose between them and appellant Gaya Prasad caught hold the complainant Bhagwandas and appellant Ganesh Yadav inflicted injuries on his abdomen by gupti (sharp edged weapon). Complainant raised the alarm on which Jagdish, Kamal, Kailash, Sarvan and other villagers reached there and witnessed the incident. Complainant Bhagwandas immediately admitted in the hospital. Biharilal lodged the FIR at police station Sehore. For further treatment Bhagwandas was shifted to Hamidiya Hospital, Bhopal. During investigation, appellants were arrested. The blood stained clothes of complainant and gupti used in the incident were also seized and the blood stained articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Sagar. After completion of due investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted. They abjured the guilt however, on the available record, learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellants and put the trial. 3. In order to bring home the charges against the appellants the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and placed first information report on record and exhibited the documents vide P-1 to P-11. Defence of the appellants were total denial but they did not choose to file any defence evidence. The learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above, hence this appeal. 4. As this appeal against appellant No.2 Gaya Prasad Yadav stood abated vide order dated 20.7.2015 on account of his death. 5. Now this appeal is being decided in respect of appellant No.1 Ganesh Yadav only. 6. 4. As this appeal against appellant No.2 Gaya Prasad Yadav stood abated vide order dated 20.7.2015 on account of his death. 5. Now this appeal is being decided in respect of appellant No.1 Ganesh Yadav only. 6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and findings of learned trial Court are perverse and contrary both on facts and law and are liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that learned trial Court failed to observe various contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that parties were having friendly terms as admitted by the complainant and looking to the single blow inflicted on the person of complainant, it is not a case for conviction of offence punishable under section 307 of IPC, therefore, appellant Ganesh Yadav be acquitted from the above mentioned offence setting aside the impugned judgment. In alternative placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Ramesh v. State of U.P. [ (1992)1 SCC 318 ] and Mohinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab [1987(Supp) SCC 65], it is also submitted that looking to the nature of single injury as well as to note that no repeated blow caused by appellant Ganesh Yadav his period of sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. Per contra, learned PL appearing for respondent submits that after due appreciation of prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court has found the offence proved against the appellant which requires no interference. It is further submitted that the injury sustained by complainant was grievous in nature and as per treating doctors injury was sufficient to cause death. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 9. Learned trial Court in paras 10 to 18 elaborately discussed the evidence of prosecution witnesses on which it is apparent that learned trial Court has not committed any error in relying the statement of complainant Bhagwandas (PW1) and the same does not require any corroboration of other witnesses. As per statement of Dr. Neelesh Maru (PW13) and Dr. Anand Sharma (PW12) it is apparent that injury caused by appellant Ganesh Yadav by sharp edged weapon on vital part of the complainant Bhagwandas was grievous in nature. As per statement of Dr. Neelesh Maru (PW13) and Dr. Anand Sharma (PW12) it is apparent that injury caused by appellant Ganesh Yadav by sharp edged weapon on vital part of the complainant Bhagwandas was grievous in nature. In above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of the appellant Ganesh Yadav for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC is confirmed. 10. Now the question remained for consideration is that what will be the appropriate period of sentence for appropriate adjudication of this appeal. 11. On perusal of the record following facts are proved :- (I) that the incident was took place on 3.6.1996 about 20 years ago. (II) that the injury was caused by hard and sharp edged weapon, but only single blow was inflicted. This fact need not to be repeated that to gather the intention to commit murder of Bhagwandas appellant Ganesh was having ample opportunity to inflict second, third and whatever number of injuries. (III) that there is complete lapse of motive in this case. On the other hand complainant Bhagwandas (PW-2) admitted that he was having very good friendly relations with the appellant which is also supported by witness Bihari Lal (PW1). (IV) that appellant Ganesh was arrested firstly for the period 4.6.1996 to 18.6.1996 and thereafter he was under custody from 24.11.1997 to 30.6.2000. It goes to show that appellant was under custody for more than 2 years, 7 months and 14 days. (V) that at the time of incident age of the appellant Ganesh was 22 years, now he is running in his fifties. 12. Looking to above mentioned peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and age of appellant Ganesh he deserves consideration of the question of sentence as no useful purpose will be served by sending him again to jail after lapse of 20 years. Resultantly, I am of the considered view that in the instant case the sentence already undergone will meet the ends of justice. 13. Hence, confirming the judgment of conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, I reduce the jail sentence awarded to appellant Ganesh Yadav to the period already undergone by him. The appeal, to this extent, is partly allowed and the impugned judgment is modified. Appellant Ganesh is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. 14. The appeal is partly allowed.