Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 464 (MP)

Ramsingh v. State of M. P.

2021-05-06

VIVEK RUSIA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Today the case is fixed for consideration of I.A. No.5708 of 2020 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Since the record of the trial Court has been received, hence with the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally. This Criminal Appeal under section 374 of CrPC has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 5.9.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Susner, District Shajapur in S.T. No.60/2019, thereby convicting the appellant for offence under section 307 and sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months. 2. As per prosecution story, the complainant/ injured (Anshubai) lodged a Dehati Nalish on 5.12.2018 near about 08:10 that she is resident of Village Bheelkhedi and her husband Ramsingh i.e. present appellant used to doubt over her character, therefore, she has started living separately alongwith her two sons in a rented house situated at Govindpura Nalkheda. She was working in a private school. Today, i.e. 5.12.2018, she was returning from school, near about 6:00 pm, when she reached infront the house of Prem Rathore, her husband met and demanded rupees for consumption of liquor. When she refused, he took out the knife and inflicted the injury on her left side of the chest. She shouted, then appellant inflicted another injury on her stomach. After hearing her screaming voice, the local residents came there, and appellant ran away. She reached to the police for lodging the FIR, from where she was refereed to Nalkheda hospital. Police registered an FIR bearing crime No.374/2018 under section 307 of I.P.C. against the appellant. The police prepared the spot map, collected the blood-stained earth and cloths of the complainant and recorded the statement of witnesses. After arrest of appellant, his statement under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act was recorded and knife was recovered upon his disclosure. After completion of the investigation, Police filed the charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and trail was committed to Session Court by committal order dated 20.2.2019. 3. The trial Court by order dated 12.3.2019 framed charges under sections 307 of IPC The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty. 4. After completion of the investigation, Police filed the charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and trail was committed to Session Court by committal order dated 20.2.2019. 3. The trial Court by order dated 12.3.2019 framed charges under sections 307 of IPC The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Gabbar@ Hemendra Mittal (PW1), Pyarelal (PW2), Complainant/ Anshubai (PW3), Ladsingh (PW4), Lakhan (PW5), Hemlata (PW6), Bharatsingh (PW7), Antarsingh (PW8), Jatansingh Mandloi (PW9) and Dr. Manish Chouhan (PW10). The appellant did not examine any witness in support of his defence. 5. After appreciation of the evidence came on record, the learned (Ramsingh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh) Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo five years R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. 6. The complainant (PW3) has fully supported the case of prosecution. She remained in the hospital for 22-25 days, however, she has denied her dying declaration statement recorded by the doctor vide Ex.P/4. However, in her cross-examination she has again stated that the appellant has caused her two stab injuries. So far as injuries are concerned, the prosecution has examined Dr. Manish Chouhan (PW10), who has confirmed two injuries sustained by the appellant to the complainant. Other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. 7. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not arguing the appeal on merit but submits that the appellant has wrongly been convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. on the basis of the evidence came on record the conviction cannot travel beyond 324 or 325 of the I.P.C. and praying for reduction of sentence from the period of five years to the period of already undergone. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant was arrested on 7.12.2018 and till today he is in jail, hence , out of five years he has undergone 2 years, 5 months sentence and deposited the fine amount. There is no minimum sentence prescribed for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. He is not habitual offender. He further submits that the appellant had no intention to kill his wife. There is no minimum sentence prescribed for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. He is not habitual offender. He further submits that the appellant had no intention to kill his wife. He was only demanding the money, when she refused but provoked him hence due to the sudden provocation, he assaulted her. 8. Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the bail application by submitting that the appellant had intention to kill his wife, therefore, he inflicted the two-knife injuries on the vital part of his body but there is no opinion of doctor the injuries were grievous in nature there is no scope of reduction. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. That at the complainant (PW3) in her statement Ex./4 as well as in the Court did not alleged that appellant caused injury with intention to kill her. In dying declaration (Ex.P/4), she has simply stated that her husband assaulted her by knife because she refused to give money for consumption of liquor. 10. It is correct that the appellant is not habitual offender. He was demanding money from his wife , on refusal he took out the knife and inflicted two injuries on the vital part of the body, however, the nature of injuries are not grievous. To attract the section 307 of IPC the intention or knowledge behind the act is very important. According to which whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offence shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned i.e. upto 10 years. However, none of the witnesses including injured have stated in the Court that the appellant caused injury with intention to kill, therefore, section 307 of IPC is not made out. 11. As per definition of section 325 of IPC, the appellant has voluntarily causes hurt to his wife. In the Court statement, the complainant has stated that she was returning from the school, the appellant came from behind, caught hold her and inflicted the injuries. 11. As per definition of section 325 of IPC, the appellant has voluntarily causes hurt to his wife. In the Court statement, the complainant has stated that she was returning from the school, the appellant came from behind, caught hold her and inflicted the injuries. She has not stated that before causing injury, he demanded any money. She has denied about DD recorded at Nalkheda Hospital but she remained in the hospital for 22 to 25 days, which shows that injuries were grievous in nature. The police have collected all the documents related to her treatment; therefore, appellant is liable to be punished under section 325 of IPC instead of 307 of IPC. 12. Considering overall circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that he is not hardened criminal that the appellant has already served almost 2 year and 5 months of the jail sentence it would be appropriate that sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced from the period of 5 years to 3 years R.I and fine amount is enhanced Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. In default of fine amount appellant shall further undergo 6 months R.I. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant be released after completion of three years jail sentence, if not required in any other case. Record of the trial Court be sent back along with judgment.