Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 500 (MP)

Laxmi Narayan v. State of M. P.

2016-06-23

SUBHASH KAKADE

body2016
ORDER 1. Through this revision, the applicants/complainants have assailed the judgment dated 30.5.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.183/2007 by learned Special Judge (SC and ST) Act, District Sehore, whereby learned Appellate Court has reduced the jail sentence of six months awarded by learned JMFC, Sehore in RT No.143/2005 vide judgment dated 23.8.2007 to respondents No.2 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) under section 323 of IPC, and instead of that, fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed on each of the accused. However, the accused were acquitted for the offence punishable under section 324 of IPC as it has not been found proved by the appellate Court. 2. The prosecution story is that on 27.12.1996 in the evening at about 7 O’clock, accused have assaulted the applicants by means of lathi and farsi over some dispute taken place earlier, as a result of which applicants received grievous injuries. FIR Ex.P-1 was lodged by applicants. After recording the statements of prosecution witnesses and completing the investigation, the police charge sheeted the accused. The respondent No.2 Kishor Singh was charged and tried for the offences punishable under sections 294, 323, 325, 506 Part II and section 324 of IPC and respondents No.3 to 6 were charged and tried for the offences punishable under sections 294, 323, 325 and 506 Part II IPC. 3. The accused abjured the guilt hence they were put to trial. 4. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, prosecution has examined seven witnesses including the applicants/complainants and exhibited the documents P-1 to P-12. During accused statement they denied all the evidence putforth against them and their defence was of false implication. Defence examined Amarsingh (DW1) and Roopsingh Rathore (DW2) in support of its case. 5. Learned JMFC has convicted the accused persons under sections 323 and 324 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months each under section 323 IPC and one year R.I.each under section 324 IPC with fine of Rs.200/-, 200/- respectively with default stipulations. Learned Special Judge, in appeal, has acquitted the accused under section 324 of IPC, and further reduced the sentence of six months R.I. imposed under section 323 IPC to fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants have come up in this revision. 6. Learned Special Judge, in appeal, has acquitted the accused under section 324 of IPC, and further reduced the sentence of six months R.I. imposed under section 323 IPC to fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Aggrieved thereby, the applicants have come up in this revision. 6. Shri Ashish Sinha, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned trial Court committed grave error in acquitting the accused under section 324 of IPC, and thereafter reducing the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by learned trial Court under section 323 of IPC. He further submits that undue weightage has been given to minor omissions and contradictions in order to set aside the conviction of accused under section 324 of IPC. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel submits that the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court suffers with surmises and conjectures, therefore, it may be set aside and that of learned trial Court be restored. 7. Shri R.N.Yadav, learned PL appearing for the State and Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the accused have supported the judgment delivered by learned appellate Court and prays for dismissal of this revision. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered by the prosecution; and the impugned judgment. After reflecting over the matter, I am implicitly satisfied that on merits, the judgment passed by learned appellate Court, warrants no interference. 9. Learned appellate Court after elaborate scrutiny of depositions of prosecution witnesses has rightly held, which reads as under :- **tgk¡ rd lafgrk dh /kkjk 324 ds rgr naMuh; vijk/k dk iz'u gS izFke LFkku ij rks vfHk;qDr fd'kksj dks NksM+dj vU; fdlh vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ ds fo#) mDr /kkjk ds rgr vkjksi vkjksfir ugha fd;k x;k gSA mDr fLFkfr esa izFken`"V~;k vfHk;qDr@vihykFkhZ fd'kksj dks NksM+ dj 'ks"k vfHk;qDrx.k dh lafgrk dh /kkjk 324 ds rgr nks"k flf) ugha Bgjk;h tk ldrhA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk lHkh vfHk;qDrx.k@vihykFkhZx.k dks lafgrk dh /kkjk 324 ds rgr vijk/k dk nks"k fl) Bgjk;k tkdj oS/kkfud =qfV dh xbZ gSA** 10. Learned appellate Court also rightly come to conclusion that:- **vfHk;qDr fd'kksj ds fo#) lafgrk dh /kkjk 324 ds rgr ;g vkjksi gS fd mlus pqUuhyky o mlds yM+ds y{ehukjk;.k dks /kkjnkj gfFk;kj QlhZ ls ekjihV dj LosPNk migfr dkfjr dhA mYys[kuh; gS fd Qfj;knh pqUuhyky vkSj mlds iq= y{ehukjk;.k dks /kkjnkj gfFk;kj dh dksbZ pksV fpfdRlh; lk{; ds vuqlkj ugha ik;h xbZ gSA MkDVj vkuUn lqpkjh ¼v-lk-7½ ds vuqlkj vkgrksa dks vk;h pksVsa l[r ,oa cksfFkjs gfFk;kj ls vk ldrh FkhA lkFk gh pqUuhyky ¼v-lk-2½ us vius eq[; ijh{k.k ds iSjk@2 esa fd'kksj }kjk QlhZ ls flj esa ekjuk crk;k gS tcfd vius izfrijh{k.k ds iSjk@13 esa fd'kksj }kjk mYVh QlhZ dh pksaV igqapkuk crk;k x;k gSA fo}ku U;kf;d naMkf/kdkjh us Li"V :i ls ,slk dksbZ fu"d"kZ fn;k gS ftlls ;g fof}r gks fd vkgrksa dks /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls migfr dkfjr dh xbZA fo}ku U;kf;d naMkf/kdkjh us ykBh dks ?kkrd midj.k ekudj vkgrksa dks [krjukd vk;q/k ,oa lk/kuksa }kjk migfr dkfjr fd;k tkuk izekf.kr ekuk gSA izFke LFkku ij rks vfHk;qDr fd'kksj ds vykok 'ks"k vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo#) lafgrk dh /kkjk 324 ds rgr vkjksi vkjksfir ugha gSA f}rh; LFkku ij vfHk;qDr fd'kksj ds fo#) /kkjnkj gfFk;kj QlhZ ls migfr dkfjr djus dk Li"V vkjksi gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjnkj gfFk;kj QlhZ ls pksV igqapk;k tkuk lk{; ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr ugha gqvk gS vkSj rc vfHk;qDr fd'kksj dks Hkh lafgrk dh /kkjk 324 ds rgr vijkèk dk fl) nks"k ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vfHk;qDrx.k dks lafgrk dh /kkjk 324 ds rgr vijk/k ds fy;s nks"k fl) Bgjkdj rF; ,oa fof/k dh =qfV dh gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k@vihykFkhZx.k dh lafgrk /kkjk 324 ds rgr vijk/k dh nks"kflf) vikLr dh tkdj ikfjr naMkns'k fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA** 11. Learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by learned appellate Court. 12. The present revision deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. Learned Courts below be intimated forthwith. Ashish Sinha for applicant; R. N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State; Satyam Agrawal for respondents No.2 to 6.