Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1245 (MP)

Ramesh Chandra v. State of M. P.

2022-10-17

ANAND PATHAK

body2022
ORDER 1. The present revision petition under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.8.2022 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri District Shivpuri in Criminal Appeal No.349/2017 partly modifying the judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pohari District Shivpuri in Criminal Case No.615/2012 whereby petitioners have been convicted as under: S. No. Offence u/s Imprisonment Fine Default Stipulation 1 147 of IPC 3 months' RI Rs. 300/- One month RI 2 451 of IPC 3 months' RI Rs. 300/- One month RI 3 325 r/w 149 of IPC 1 year's RI Rs. 1,000/- Two months RI 4 325 r/w 149 of IPC 1 year's RI Rs. 1,000/- Two months RI 5 323 r/w 149 of IPC 3 months' RI Rs. 300/- One month RI 6 323 r/w 149 of IPC 3 months' RI Rs. 300/- One month RI 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on 23.10.2012 complainant Lapairam Jatav lodged the complaint to the effect that on the basis of fencing related dispute, some altercations took place between him and accused Vishambhar and thereafter all the accused persons having common intention, assaulted the complainant and when his wife Santo Bai, brother Khachera and Shivcharan came to rescue him, they were also beaten by the accused persons, due to which complainant and other injured received several injuries. On complaint, FIR Ex-P/1 was registered against all the accused persons at Crime No.238/2012 for offence under sections 147, 149, 323, 506-B and 451 of IPC. MLC of complainant party was conducted in which they were shown to have been sustained several injuries including contusions and abrasions. Matter was investigated and challan was filed in the matter. 3. Before the trial Court -Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pohari, district Shivpuri petitioners abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case and in defence, petitioners have been examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. No other witness has been examined from the defence side as defence witness. After recording of evidence ocular as well as documentary and hearing the submission of counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as referred above. 4. After recording of evidence ocular as well as documentary and hearing the submission of counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as referred above. 4. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court has been challenged by the petitioners by preferring criminal appeal. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and thereafter convicted and sentenced the petitioners as indicated above. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioners for the offence referred above. There is material contradictions and omissions between the statements of prosecution witnesses in relation to place of incident and eye witnesses present on the spot and such aspect has not been considered by the trial Court. Two incidents have been mingled to make out the present case. As per the version of complainant Lapairam (PW-1), Santo Bai (PW-2), Khachera (PW-3), Shivcharan (PW-4) and Kalawati (PW-5) there is boundary dispute of agriculture land between the parties and earlier also several litigation took place between them thus, in order to take revenge this false case has been registered against the accused persons. Independent witness did not support the story of prosecution. Further, the doctor who conducted x-ray of the injured has not been examined by the prosecution before the trial Court. 6. Alternatively, it is further submitted that looking to the nature of offence, conviction and jail sentence, according to provisions of section 357 of Cr.P.C. compensation/fine at higher side be directed to be paid, which petitioners are ready to pay. Accordingly, it is submitted that the jail sentence of petitioners be reduced to the sentence already undergone by them for which petitioners are ready to pay compensation to the complainant and injured persons as this Court deems fit. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition. However, he fairly accepted that if petitioners are ready to pay enhanced fine then only their case for undergone may be considered. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is a case where petitioners are facing the allegation of causing Lathi blow to the complainant and other injured persons over various part of their body. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is a case where petitioners are facing the allegation of causing Lathi blow to the complainant and other injured persons over various part of their body. The aforesaid allegation of causing Lathi blow to the complainant and other injured persons is duly corroborated by medical evidence Ex-P/4 to P/7 conducted by Dr. Chandrashekhar Gupta (PW-7). In the case in hand, complainant and other injured persons sustained several injuries caused by petitioners and their companion. 10. From perusal of statements of complainant Lapairam (PW-1), Santo Bai (PW-2), Khachera (PW-3), Shivcharan (PW-4), Kalawati (PW-5) and Dr. Chandrashekhar Gupta (PW-7), it is clear that petitioners assaulted the complainant and other persons and the statements of all these witnesses are duly corroborated by the medical report Ex-P/4 to P/7 proved by Dr. Chandrashekhar Gupta (PW -7). Further the independent witness Vinod (PW-6) categorically stated that accused persons used to stop their way and they did not permit them to use the common passage. Although some inconsistencies, contradictions and omissions crept into the statements of these witnesses but they are not of such nature by which commission of offence with the complainant may come under the clouds of doubt. 11. Dr. Chandrashekhar Gupta (PW-7) who conducted MLC of the complainant and other injured persons vide Ex-P/4 to P/7 opined that complainant and injured persons sustained several injuries including lacerated and abrasions over their person but according to opinion of doctor all the injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. Further, perusal of statements of witnesses and spot map Ex-P/2 commission of offence under section 451 of IPC against the petitioners comes under doubt. 12. In view of the above, looking to the testimony of complainant Lapairam (PW-1) supported by res gestae evidence of injured witnesses and the injuries duly corroborated by medical evidence and further the testimony of doctor, this Court is of the considered view that both the Courts below did not commit any error in convicting the petitioners. Prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Courts below duly vetted the rival submissions and thereafter passed the impugned judgment and conviction against the petitioners. Prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Courts below duly vetted the rival submissions and thereafter passed the impugned judgment and conviction against the petitioners. The Hon’ble apex Court in the case of K. Prakashan v. P.K.Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 and T. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 held that if two views are possible and one view is taken by the trial Court after due appreciation of evidence then unless sheer perversity or illegality crept in to the judgment of trial Court, the scope of interference is limited. 13. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that from the date of passing of impugned judgment of conviction by the appellate Court, petitioners are in jail and they suffered almost two months (49 days) incarceration and further they have already suffered 10 years' long ordeal of trial, therefore, case of petitioners be considered for the sentence already undergone by them, for which they are ready to pay compensation to the complainant and injured persons, therefore, compensation/fine amount is enhanced. 14. In view of the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case benefit of reduction of sentence is extended to the petitioners/revisionists to the extent that conviction recorded by the trial Court is maintained but sentence deserves to be modified to the extent that the sentence which petitioners/revisionsist have already undergone, would be sufficient for serving jail sentence but in view of section 357 of Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the number of injuries suffered by the complainant -Lapairam (PW-1) and other injured persons, this Court orders the petitioners to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- (Rs.7,000/- by each petitioners) to the complainant and injured persons and same be deposited within one month from today while giving undertaking before the trial Court that if they failed to pay compensation Rs.35,000/- (in addition to the fine amount imposed by the Courts below) to the complainant and injured persons, then trial Court would proceed against them to serve remaining part of jail sentence. Thus, if petitioners/revisionists do not deposit the amount as directed by this Court within the stipulated time then they shall have to serve the remaining jail sentence, for which the Courts below sentenced them. Thus, if petitioners/revisionists do not deposit the amount as directed by this Court within the stipulated time then they shall have to serve the remaining jail sentence, for which the Courts below sentenced them. It is made clear that this benefit of undergone has been given to the petitioners in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where petitioners suffered almost one month's incarceration and suffered ordeal of trial for 10 years. 15. Resultantly, the revision petition preferred by the petitioners stands disposed of while maintaining the conviction recorded by the Courts below and the sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by them with further direction to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- (in addition to the fine imposed by the Courts below) to the complainant and injured persons (equally). Petitioners are in jail. They be released forthwith and are set free if not required in any other case. The trial Court is directed to call the complainant and injured persons and get the payment of aforesaid amount done in their favour immediately after deposit of the aforesaid compensation amount by the petitioners. The compensation/fine amount shall be paid to the complainant and injured persons after due verification. 16. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance. 17. Revision petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.