Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 626 (MP)

Balusingh v. State of M. P.

2019-08-30

VIRENDER SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against judgment and order dated 17.5.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 125/17 by Additional Sessions Judge, Susner, District Shajapur, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under section 307 of IPC and awarded 5 years RI with fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default further to undergo 6 months RI. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 22.1.2017 at about 04:30 in the evening, the prosecutrix was going home in village Lalakhedi. The accused came in her way near the farm land of Ramlal. He caught her hand with ill-intention and asked her to accompany him. When she refused, he took out knife and inflicted twice on her abdomen. When she tried to defend, he repeated the blow. She sustained injury on the right elbow and neck. As she screamed, her mother and some other person came and rescued her. 3. The complainant/victim was taken to the hospital. Hospital authority informed the police. The police reached at the hospital, where the complainant lodged dehati nalishi Ex. P-1. The crime was registered as FIR No. 14/2017. The complainant was examined by Dr. Akhilesh Bagi (PW5), who found 2 punctured wound on the abdomen and 3 incised wound, 1 on neck and 2 on right elbow. It was opined by him that injuries might have been dangerous to life if would not have been treated on time. The police investigated the case, visited the spot, prepared spot map (Ex. P-8), seized plain and bloodstained soil, arrested the accused vide arrest memo, recovered knife from his possession (Ex.P-10), recorded statement of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet under sections 354, 307 and 506-II of IPC. The accused was charged for these sections. He abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. After the trial, he was acquitted from all other charges except the charge under section 307 of IPC for which he has convicted and sentenced as stated above. 4. The appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds, but during argument, learned counsel submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits. His limited prayer is that the appellant was 20 years of age at the time of the incident. He is not a habitual criminal. No other case except the present case has ever been registered against him. His limited prayer is that the appellant was 20 years of age at the time of the incident. He is not a habitual criminal. No other case except the present case has ever been registered against him. Both the accused and the complainant are neighbours and actually, there was a dispute on account of fetching water from a common well. At the time of medical examination, Dr. Akhilesh Baghi have not opined that any of the injuries was dangerous to the life. Such opinion was given only after the query raised by the police and even that opinion was not specific. It has been opined by Dr. Baghi that injury would have been dangerous to life if would not have been treated on time. He has admitted in cross-examination that any injury may be considered as dangerous to life if not treated on time. The accused is in jail since 31.1.2017 and has almost completed 2 years and 8 months of jail sentence, therefore, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. Stating that the appellant inflicted repeated blow of the knife and caused serious injury on the abdomen of the complainant/victim, therefore, he is not entitled for any leniency. 6. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and have perused the evidence produced by the prosecution. 7. In her statement complainant (PW1) has stated that the accused inflicted knife twice, therefore, she lost her conscious and regain consciousness in the hospital. Considering the nature of incident, nature of injury caused, its seriousness, period of custody, age of the accused and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence of the accused for a reasonable period. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be sub-served if the accused is awarded sentence of 3 years and 3 months along with fine imposed by the learned trial Court. 9. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 307 of IPC is hereby confirmed. He is awarded sentence of 3 years and 3 months of R.I. along with the fine imposed by the learned trial Court. 10. Order of the trial Court in respect of disposal of case property is hereby confirmed. 11. 9. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 307 of IPC is hereby confirmed. He is awarded sentence of 3 years and 3 months of R.I. along with the fine imposed by the learned trial Court. 10. Order of the trial Court in respect of disposal of case property is hereby confirmed. 11. With the aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed and is disposed of.