Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 277 (MP)

Sukhdev v. State of M. P.

2020-02-20

VIRENDER SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Both the appellants have preferred this appeal against judgment and order dated 25.2.2000 delivered in Sessions trial No. 329/1999 by Additional Sessions Judge, Badwah, West Nimar whereby the learned trial Court has convicted appellant - Sukhdev for the offence punishable under sections 307 and 325/34 IPC and appellant - Vasudev for the offence punishable under sections 325 and 307/34 IPC and have awarded them 5-5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- Rs. 500/- each for the offence under section 307, 307/34 IPC and 2-2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 325 325/34 IPC with fine of Rs. 500/- Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, they are further directed to undergo 3-3 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that appellant Sukhdev and complainant Mahaveer were having old enmity. On 22.9.1999 Mahaveer had come to village Dhasgaon from village Makhagaon to take his goat. In the evening, when he was coming back home after urination, he encountered with Sukhdev, who started abusing him. He was asked not to do so. There was some scuffle between both of them. Suddenly his brother appellant Vasudev also came out with an iron rod and with intent to kill him struck it on his back. Sukhdev also gave a blow of sickle (Darata) on his neck. The complainant screamed. His daughter Radhabai and son Mahesh along with brother-in-law Champalal rushed towards him. Seeing them, both Vasudev and Sukhdev fled away from the spot. 3. Next day on 23.9.1999 at 9:15 a.m. the complainant lodged FIR Ex.P-1, which was registered under section 307/34 IPC. He was sent for medical examination vide requisition Ex.P-11. After examining him , Dr T. S. Tawar submitted report Ex.P-3. Two incised wounds and three contusion with an abrasion were observed by the Doctor. He was advised X-ray. On X-ray examination, right tibia bone was found fractured. Medical report of complainant- Mahaveer is Ex.P-3, X-ray report and X-ray plate is Ex.P-4. The police visited the spot and prepared spot map Ex.P-5. Seized blood stained banyan (vest) and pant of the complainant vide seizure memo Ex.P-2, arrested both the appellants and interrogated them and on their disclosure statements recovered iron rod and Darata (sickle) from their possession, their arrest memo is Ex.P-10, disclosure memos are Ex.P-6 and P-7 and seizure memos are Exs.P-8 and Ex.P-9. Seized blood stained banyan (vest) and pant of the complainant vide seizure memo Ex.P-2, arrested both the appellants and interrogated them and on their disclosure statements recovered iron rod and Darata (sickle) from their possession, their arrest memo is Ex.P-10, disclosure memos are Ex.P-6 and P-7 and seizure memos are Exs.P-8 and Ex.P-9. After completing investigation, the police filed charge-sheet, which culminated in conviction of the appellants as mentioned in preceding para. 4. The appellants have preferred this appeal on several grounds but during the argument, learned counsel submitted that the parties have compromised case, therefore, he does not want to challenge the conviction, but his limited prayer is that the sentence of the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. It is prayed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the incident took place in the year 1999. The injured/complainant died his natural death. His son has now compromised the case. Both the parties have filed the compromise, which has been verified by the Principal Registrar. 6. It is further submitted that the appellants have no criminal record. They are facing trial since 1999. Twenty one (21) years have been passed. At the time of the incident they were young boys of 21-22 years of age. Now, they are running in their forties. They are married men, having growing children and have responsibility of their families. They were granted bail during the trial in the year 1999 and thereafter in appeal they were granted suspension in the year 2000 and since last 20 years no other criminal case has ever been registered against them, which shows that they have never misused the liberty granted by the Court and they are living a peaceful life and leading a life as law abiding persons. The incident took place all of sudden. There is no evidence of intention, premeditation or preparation. The incident took place on a petty issue. 7. As per allegation, Vasudev was having a iron rod in his hand and he never wielded it on any vital part of the injured. He only gave a blow on the legs, which shows that his intention was not to cause death of the injured/complainant. Further, doctor as nowhere stated that the injury was dangerous to the life. No other evidence is produced by the prosecution to show that the injury was dangerous to the life. He only gave a blow on the legs, which shows that his intention was not to cause death of the injured/complainant. Further, doctor as nowhere stated that the injury was dangerous to the life. No other evidence is produced by the prosecution to show that the injury was dangerous to the life. Incident took place in the evening at 7 O' clock (19:00 hours). The complainant remained in the house for entire night and in the morning too he approached the police at about 9:15 AM and lodged the report, which shows that neither the injuries were serious nor complainant or his family themselves considered them serious, therefore, entire night he remained in his house. Hence, at the most, offence punishable under section 324 IPC is made out. The appellants are not challenging the merits, even then this fact may be considered to mitigate their punishment and they may be awarded punishment for the offence found proved by the trial Court for the period already undergone, which is 10 months 26 days for appellant No. 1-Sukhdev and four months 22 days for appellant No. 2-Vasudev. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer but has not controverted the facts narrated by the learned counsel for the appellants. 9. I have considered rival contentions of the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the parties. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the peculiar state of facts, in my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be sub-served if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the extent as prayed for, therefore, appeal is partly allowed. While conviction of the appellants recorded by the learned trial Court under sections 307 and 307/34 of IPC is upheld, their sentence for the same is reduced to the period already undergone, with fine imposed by the trial Court. 11. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off. 12. I.A.s, if any, pending in this appeal stand closed. 13. The order of learned trial Court regarding disposal of case property is hereby confirmed.