Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 355 (MP)

Kallu alias Prahlad v. State of M. P.

2019-05-02

NANDITA DUBEY

body2019
JUDGMENT : NANDITA DUBEY, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.10.2009, passed by Seventh Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sagar in S.T. No. 149/2009, whereby the appellants have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. As per prosecution, injured complainant Anil Shrivastava lodged a report at Police Station Naryawali at 12.15 p.m. that on 24.10.2008 at 11.15 a.m. the three appellants with common intention, attacked and assaulted with knife on account of previous money/loan transaction. According to the complainant, Raju stabbed him in the chest and Kallu alias Prahlad dealt a blow in the back side of left thigh, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. It is stated that the incident was witnessed by Jaisingh Dhosi and Sher Singh. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR was registered and criminal investigation started. Injured was sent for medical examination, where he was examined by Dr. A.K. Jain (PW-3) and Dr. A.K. Sahay (PW-7). 4. The accused persons were arrested and on the basis of their disclosure statement, knifes were recovered from Kallu, Raju and Pradeep vide Exs.P-13, P-15 and P-17 respectively. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to substantiate their case. The appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. However, they did not produce any evidence in their defence. 5. The trial Court relying on the testimony of Anil Shrivastava (PW-1), Sher Singh (PW-2), Dr. A.K. Jain (PW-3) and Dr. K.R. Sahay (PW-7) and the medical report found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 6. During pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 3 Pradeep died, therefore his name was deleted from the array of appellants. The appeal stands abated against him. 7. The report received from Office Superintendent, Central Jail Sagar that appellant No. 1 Kallu alias Prahlad has served out the sentence and released from the jail on 16.01.2019. It is further reported that appellant Raju alias Rajesh was released on bail, on 27.11.2009. 8. Shri Abhishek Tiwari, Amicus Curiae has fairly stated that he is only arguing on the point of sentence and not on merits. It is further reported that appellant Raju alias Rajesh was released on bail, on 27.11.2009. 8. Shri Abhishek Tiwari, Amicus Curiae has fairly stated that he is only arguing on the point of sentence and not on merits. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the injured received only simple injuries. Hence, the case at the most would fall under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and not under Section 307 of the I.P.C. as only single blow was dealt by the appellants. It is argued that from the act described by the prosecution, it cannot be inferred that the appellants had any intention to cause the death of the injured. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 11. It is evident from the statements and medical reports of PW-3 Dr. A.K. Jain and PW-7 A.K. Sahay, who has examined the injured that he received only two stab wounds, one 3 x 1 cm on the right side, below clavicle and second on the back of thigh, muscle deep. According Dr. K.R. Sahay (PW-7), Surgical Expert, both the injuries were simple in nature. 12. Injured, Anil Shrivastava (PW-1) has stated that on his way from home, he met the appellants, who were sitting at the shop of Munna Patel. He has stated that altercation started when Kallu asked for return of the loan amount and he said that he would give it later. Hearing which, Raju took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed him in the chest, when he ran, Kallu also assaulted with knife, which caused the injury on the back side of his leg. Thereafter all the appellants ran away. Similar is the statement of eye-witness PW-2 Sher Singh. 13. The scope of Section 307 of I.P.C. and its applicability came up for consideration in Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab, 1961 (2) Cri. L.J. 848. Thereafter all the appellants ran away. Similar is the statement of eye-witness PW-2 Sher Singh. 13. The scope of Section 307 of I.P.C. and its applicability came up for consideration in Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab, 1961 (2) Cri. L.J. 848. After taking note of apparent divergent views expressed by the Bombay High Court in the matter, the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of the judgment observed as follows: “...On a parity of reasoning, a person commits an offence under Section 307 when he has an intention to commit murder and, in pursuance of that intention, does an act towards its commission irrespective of the fact whether that act is the penultimate act or not. It is to. be clearly understood, however, that the intention to commit the offence of murder means that the person concerned has the intention to do certain act with the necessary intention or knowledge mentioned in Section 100. The intention to commit an offence is different from the intention or knowledge requisite for constituting the act as that offence. The expression 'whoever attempts to commit an offence' in Section 511, can only mean “whoever intends to do a certain act with the intent or knowledge necessary for the commission of that offence.” The same is meant by the expression “whoever does an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder” in Section 307. This simply means that the act must be done with the intent or knowledge requisite for the commission of the offence of murder. The expression “by that act” does not mean that the immediate effect of the act committed must be death. Such a result must be the result of that act whether immediately or after a lapse of time.” 14. In view of the aforesaid, it is to be examined that the offence committed by the appellants would fall under Section 324, I.P.C. or under Section 307 of the I.P.C. 15. In the present case, from the evidence of Anil Shrivastava (PW-1), it is evident that the altercation ensued all of a sudden due to non-returning of loan amount by the injured and after only two blows, the appellants ran away. In the present case, from the evidence of Anil Shrivastava (PW-1), it is evident that the altercation ensued all of a sudden due to non-returning of loan amount by the injured and after only two blows, the appellants ran away. It is also clear from the medical report that only two stab wounds were inflicted, one on the right side of chest and other on the back side of thigh. Both these injuries were simple in nature and not dangerous to life. Under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the offence disclosed was under Section 307 of the I.P.C. 16. In the result, the conviction of the appellants is altered from 307, I.P.C. to 324 of the I.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 17. This appeal is partly allowed. Appellant Raju alias Rajesh is on bail. His bonds Shall stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith to undergo the remaining part of jail sentence. 18. A copy of this judgment along with the order-sheet be sent to the M.P. High Court Legal Services Committee for information and necessary action.