Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 174 (MP)

Vikram v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2020-02-03

VIRENDER SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - The appellant has preferred this appeal against judgment and order dated 28.09.2004 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.85/2003 by Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ujjain, whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant under Sections 341, 307 in alternate 307/34 , 506-II of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, while convicted him for the offence under Section 324 and 323 IPC. The appellant is awarded 1 year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 324 IPC and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 323 IPC with default stipulations. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 24.08.2002, complainant Babulal was cutting cattle feed in his farm, coaccused Ishwar cross with his bull cart from his farm land. He objected for the same and asked him to go through the public passage. They were embroiled in dispute. Suddenly maternal uncle of Ishwar, Vikram arrived with an axe in his hand, restrained the way of Babulal and started beating him. He gave him a blow of axe on right side of forehead. Co-accused Ishwar beat him by wooden stick and caused injuries on left shoulder, back and hand of complainant. Babulal screamed. Sita Bai Raju Bai and Babu Choudhary rushed and rescued him. Babulal lodged FIR Ex.P/1. The police sent him for medical examination and obtained his injury report Ex.P/3, visited the spot and prepared spot map Ex.P/8, arrested both the accused persons Vikram and Ishwar vide arrest memos Ex.P/9 and P/10, recovered from their possession axe and stick vide Exs.P/7 and P/8, seized shirt and towel of complainant Babulal vide Ex.P/6, obtained caste certificate of the victim showing him a scheduled caste, recorded police statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, filed the charge-sheet. 3. Both the accused persons were charged under Sections 341, 307 in alternate 307/34, 323 in alternate 323/34, 506-II IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act. After the trial, they both are acquitted from all other charges, except the charge under Section 324 and 323 IPC. Co-accused Ishwar was convicted under Section 323 IPC but extended the benefit of Probation of offenders Act, he has not preferred any appeal, while the appellant Vikram is convicted as stated in para one above. 4. After the trial, they both are acquitted from all other charges, except the charge under Section 324 and 323 IPC. Co-accused Ishwar was convicted under Section 323 IPC but extended the benefit of Probation of offenders Act, he has not preferred any appeal, while the appellant Vikram is convicted as stated in para one above. 4. The appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds but during arguments learned Counsel representing him submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits. He further does not want to press the sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 323 IPC. His limited prayer is that the appellant and the complainant both are co-villagers. There was no previous enmity. The incident took place all of sudden on a petty issue of crossing the bull cart from the farm land of the complainant. He was not present at the time of scuffle between the complainant and his nephew Ishwar. When he heard the voice of altercation taking place between complainant Babulal and his nephew Iswhar, he went to the spot to see as to what happened, as they both were embroiling in a dispute and the complainant was assaulting his nephew, he intervened to save him. There was no intention, preparation, or premeditation to cause injury to the complainant. No serious injury is caused to the complainant. No repeated blow is given. The appellant has no criminal antecedent. The incident took place in the year 2002 and since then he is facing trial. He has cooperated with the trial and also diligently appeared in the appeal, as and when directed by this Court. Due to missing of his date slip, he could not appear on 20th June, 2017 but now he is in jail since 20th January, 2020. During the trial he remained in jail for three days and now he is in jail since last about a month. He is running 55 years of age. He is a married man and has responsibility of young children. No other criminal case is ever registered against him. Neither prior to the incident nor thereafter, therefore, his jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. Fine amount may be enhanced to some extent. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer but has not controverted the facts submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 6. No other criminal case is ever registered against him. Neither prior to the incident nor thereafter, therefore, his jail sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. Fine amount may be enhanced to some extent. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer but has not controverted the facts submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 6. After going through the record, particularly the injury report and duration of the trial, the appellant has faced, in the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be sub-served if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone with some enhancement in the fine amount, therefore, appeal is partly allowed. 7. Having regard to the foregoing discussion and the facts and circumstances emerged from the record and as stated by the learned Counsel, the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 and 323 IPC is hereby maintained. His sentence awarded for the offence under Section 323 IPC is also confirmed, while his sentence for the offence under Section 324 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone with the fine of Rs.7,500/-. Fine amount, if any, deposited be adjusted. Out of fine amount Rs.5,000/- be given to the Babulal. 8. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 9. The order of learned Trial Court regarding disposal of case property is hereby confirmed. 10. I.A.S, if any, pending in this appeal stand closed. 11. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.