Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 380 (MP)

Manoharsingh v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2020-03-05

S.K.AWASTHI

body2020
JUDGMENT S K Awasthi, J. - Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") against the judgment dated 03/07/2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khachrod, DistrictUjjain, in Sessions Trial No.22/98, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 506-B of IPC, 1860, sentenced to undergo 7 years, 6 months and 6 months R.I, and fine of Rs.1000/-, Rs.250/-, Rs.250/- respectively with usual default stipulation. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the case are that complainant-Sajjanbai was residing at village Bheelsura and appellant-Manoharsingh, who is their relative was living opposite to their house. Ten days before the alleged incident, the appellant brought a woman to his house who belongs to his descent (gotra). Therefore, on 20/07/1997 complainant's husband Bharatsingh explained the appellant that what he has done was not a good act. Thereafter the appellant hurled abuses upon the complainant and Bharatsingh. Complainant tried to convince the appellant, however, he went to his house, came out armed with Dhariya and started hurling abuses. At that time complainant's son-Meharbansingh came out and stopped him from hurling abuses, then the appellant assaulted Meharbansingh with Dhariya due to which he sustained injury on his shoulder. Again appellant gave a dhariya blow on Mehrabansingh's head. Complainant went in rescue therefore, her finger got cut. Further allegation is that the appellant assaulted the complainant's husband Bharatsingh also. Complainant along with her husband and son went to Police Station Nagda immediately and filed complaint. On the basis of which FIR bearing Crime No.260/1997 was registered against the appellant for offence under Sections 324, 294, 307, 506 of IPC, 1860. Injured persons were sent to hospital for medical treatment. 3. During investigation Police reached the spot and prepared spot map, seized blood stained earth and plain earth, recorded the statement of the witnesses, arrested the appellant and at his instance, recovered Dhariya from his house. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offence under Sections 307, 324 and 506-II of IPC, 1860 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kachrod, District Ujjain who committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain. 4. Appellant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and examined Chatarsingh (D.W.1), Rambabai (D.W.2) and Pavansingh (D.W.3) in his defence. 5. 4. Appellant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and examined Chatarsingh (D.W.1), Rambabai (D.W.2) and Pavansingh (D.W.3) in his defence. 5. Trial Court, after considering the submissions advance by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 506-II of IPC, 1860, sentenced to undergo 7 years, 6 months and 6 months R.I, and fine of Rs.1000/-, Rs.250/-, Rs.250/- respectively with usual default stipulation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has expressly given up his challenge to the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant is concerned. In other words, the learned counsel for the appellant accepted the finding of his conviction on merits, apparently, finding no merit therein, he challenged the quantum of sentence (7 years R.I) alone. It is submitted that the appellant is a poor labourer and sole bread earner of his family. The appellant and complainant parties are relatives residing in same street, they have settled their dispute amicably and entered into compromise. Counsel assures that in future the appellant will not involve in such criminal activities. It is also submitted that having regard to all circumstances which resulted in appellant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the appellant has faced the trial for more than 22 years and has served more than 1 year and 3 months of the jail sentence awarded to him, therefore, counsel prayed that appellant's jail sentence be reduced suitably 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and argued that guilt of the appellant/accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence, therefore, he prayed that the appeal of the accused/appellant be dismissed and judgment passed by the trial court be confirmed. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the findings of his conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the findings of the trial Court of conviction is legally sustainable or not,I perused the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no case is made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that commission of alleged offence by the appellant is found proved on the basis of statement of Bharatsingh (P.W.1), Meharbansingh (P.W.3), Sajjanbai (P.W.4), Sajansingh (P.W.5), Rajaram (P.W.7), Assistant Surgeon-Dr. Srichandra Chabbra (P.W.8), Dr. Deenanath (P.W.10) which is also corroborated by the F.I.R (Ex.P/3), M.L.C report (Ex.P/15) and X-ray report (Ex.P/16). I, therefore, upheld the findings of conviction under Section 307, 324, 506-II of IPC, 1860, recorded by the trial Court. 10. Now the question arises as to whether the appellant's sentence should be reduced and if so, to what extent as urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. 11. So far as the period of sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident is almost 22 years old and during this time, the relationship between the parties have become cordial and as a matter of fact, they have compromised their dispute. It is also submitted that the applicant does not have any criminal background and he has not been involved in any crime earlier, therefore, he prays to take lenient view in regard to sentence awarded to him under Section 307 of IPC, 1860. 12. No doubt that the offence under Section 307 of IPC, 1860 is not compoundable in terms of Section 320(9) of Cr.P.C and therefore, the question of compounding of the offence in the present case does not arises. However, the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant to persuade me for a lenient view in regard to the sentence that the incident occurred on 20/07/1997 and it is almost 22 years since then, the appellant is an agriculturist by occupation and he has no previous criminal background. However, the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant to persuade me for a lenient view in regard to the sentence that the incident occurred on 20/07/1997 and it is almost 22 years since then, the appellant is an agriculturist by occupation and he has no previous criminal background. There has been reconciliation between the parties, the relationship between them have become cordial and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties have been living peacefully in the village. The appellant has already undergone almost 1 1/4 years of his jail sentence. It is also note worthy that injured Meharbansingh sustained three incised wounds, however, no fracture or any abnormality is deducted in the injury caused in his head. Fracture was found only on his left scapular region. According to medical opinion in absence of treatment injuries of Meharbansingh may be dangerous to life, however, there is no definite opinion available that the said injury is fatal to his life. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, I am satisfied that the ends of justice will be met if the substantial sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him, while enhancing the amount of fine from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. Out of the fine amount of a sum of Rs.10,000/-shall be paid to injured Meharbansingh as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, the appellant shall suffer further 6 months R.I. 14. Consequently, by affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Sections 324 and 506-B of IPC, 1860 whereas by reducing the substantial sentence for offence under Section 307 of IPC to the period already undergone by the appellant, this appeal is allowed in part to the extent mentioned herein-above. 15. The Registry of this Court is directed to arrange for issuance of supersession warrant against appellantManoharsingh. A copy of the judgment be sent to the Courts below along with record for information and compliance. 16. With the aforesaid modification the Criminal Appeal No.748/2000 stands partly allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per Rules.