Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 618 (MP)

Mahesh Patel v. State of M. P.

2023-06-21

ANURADHA SHUKLA

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. In this criminal appeal, the judgment delivered on 12.1.2023 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, district Narsinghpur, in Sessions Trial No.22/2019 has been challenged under which the appellant was convicted under section 307 of IPC and was sentenced to seven years RI and a fine amount of Rs.2,000/- with default clause. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 30.12.2018 at about 11:30 a.m. complainant Pannalal Patel was near his field and his brother Paramlal was standing in the field for arranging water for irrigation, when appellant Mahesh Patel came there carrying an axe and started hurling abuses; Complainant Pannalal Patel objected to it, this led the appellant to give complainant four blows with the axe in his hand which caused two injuries in his head, one in neck and one in left hand. The incident was seen by Paramlal and Jairam. FIR was lodged, complainant was medically examined and other proceedings were undertaken in the investigation of crime. It was revealed in the query report that the injuries caused to the complainant were dangerous to life and could have been caused by the axe seized from the appellant. After completion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment. 3. The grounds taken in this appeal are that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and could not understand the fact that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case. There were major contradictions, omissions and improvements in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Many of the witnesses did not support the prosecution story which makes it reasonable doubtful. Only on the basis of testimony of related witnesses, the finding of conviction has been given. The injuries caused to the complainant were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The seizure of weapon i.e. the axe was also not proved beyond doubt. The appellant is in jail since 31.12.2018 and has no previous record. Hence, the prayer for acquittal is made in the memo of appeal. During final arguments, it was pleaded by learned counsel for the appellant that if the conviction is maintained, the appellant be released from custody for the period already undergone. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State has seriously opposed this appeal. Hence, the prayer for acquittal is made in the memo of appeal. During final arguments, it was pleaded by learned counsel for the appellant that if the conviction is maintained, the appellant be released from custody for the period already undergone. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State has seriously opposed this appeal. According to her, the conviction as well as sentence do not suffer from any infirmity, hence deserve no intervention. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 5. The arguments from both the counsel have been heard and the record of the trial court is being perused. 6. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 30.12.2018 at about 11:30 a.m. Ex.P1 is Dehati Nalishi written on the basis of information given by injured complainant Pannalal Patel which discloses that the information was given without any delay on 30.12.2018 itself at 16:05 p.m. Persons who witnessed the incident have also been named in this Dehati Nalishi. 7. Injured Pannalal Patel (P.W.1) has narrated the prosecution version in his examination-in-chief and it is relevant to observe that despite elaborate cross-examination, the defence could not point out any contradiction in the Court testimony and the previous statements of this witness recorded by the police. Jairam Patel whose name has been mentioned in the Dehati Nalishi as eyewitness has also corroborated the prosecution story on material points. The statements of Paramlal Patel are also similarly placed as he has been named as eyewitness in the Dehati Nalishi and has corroborated the prosecution case on all material points during his court testimony. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that these witnesses were not independent witnesses, hence they should not have been relied upon but this fact has also been considered by learned trial Court and on the basis of relevant citation he has reached to the conclusion that the witness can be termed as interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of litigation. As there is no evidence in the present case which discloses that any such interest was entertained by eyewitness Jairam Patel (P.W.2) and Paramlal (P.W.3) merely being a relative of complainant, their testimonies cannot be discarded. 9. Dr. H. K. Mishra had examined the complainant on 30.12.2018 itself and found that there were four cut wounds caused on various parts of the body of complainant. 9. Dr. H. K. Mishra had examined the complainant on 30.12.2018 itself and found that there were four cut wounds caused on various parts of the body of complainant. According to him, these injuries were caused b y hard and sharp objects within a period of six hours from the time of examination. Dr. Aditi Jain (P.W.9) has answered the queries made by the police and in the report, Ex.P11. She has opined that the axe seized during investigation could have caused injuries found on the person of complainant and the injuries were dangerous to life and could have been fatal. No reason could have been assigned by the defence to disbelieve the testimony of these two medical officers. 10. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the alleged seizure o f weapon (axe) has not been proved but that fact alone cannot be a ground to reach the finding of acquittal. This case is based on direct evidence and seizure of offending weapon has merely a corroborative importance. Further, seizure of weapon has been proved by Investigating Officer Saroj Ramsakha and the seized weapon was also produced in evidence as Article A5. It may be observed that no reason has been assigned as to why the testimony of Investigating Officer should be disbelieved. No basis for false implication has been proved by the defence to challenge the veracity of Investigating Officer. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the theory that this case is based on falsehood because there was enmity between the complainant and the appellant and to cash upon that enmity, the appellant has been falsely implicated. It cannot be overlooked here that no evidence was led by the defence side to give a slightest credit to this theory. Though during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, suggestions were proposed regarding enmity but there is no admission on the part of any of the prosecution witnesses which can bring home the theory of enmity. 12. The weapons used for causing injury was not only seized in the matter but was also sent for examination to FSL. The report from FSL is Ex.P17 and defence has relied upon this report for the reason that no blood stains were found on the seized axe but the FSL report suggests otherwise. 12. The weapons used for causing injury was not only seized in the matter but was also sent for examination to FSL. The report from FSL is Ex.P17 and defence has relied upon this report for the reason that no blood stains were found on the seized axe but the FSL report suggests otherwise. In that report, examined axe was marked as Article "E" and according to the report, blood stains were found on that article. Merely because the category of blood could not be identified due to disintegration, it cannot be inferred that thee was no blood on the seized axe. 13. The above discussion brings to the conclusion that the learned Judge of trial court has very finely analyzed the evidence placed on record and has very appropriately reached to the finding of conviction under section 307 of IPC. Not a single ground raised in this appeal justifies any interference in the finding reached by the court below. Hence, this appeal fails on the point of conviction. 14. Learned trial Judge has sentenced the present appellant to seven years RI and a find of Rs.2,000/-. It was additionally argued in this appeal that if the conviction was upheld, leniency may be considered to reduce the punishment. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Guddu alias Sameer v. State of M.P. 2012 Cri.L.J. 3866. Para 15 of the judgment refers to the fact that quarrel started due to payment of very small amount and during that quarrel the appellant lost his temper and attempted the murder of complainant who earlier was his friend prior to the incident. In that case, maintaining the conviction under section 307 of IPC the sentence of imprisonment was reduced and the fine amount was enhanced. The statements of complainant are examined in this reference. He has claimed that the dispute arose when the appellant started hurling abuses. When asked about the reason of abuses, complainant stated that it is in the nature of appellant and he even abuses his family members. It appears that the incident occurred without any premeditation and although four injuries were caused by a sharp cutting object, three were only muscle deep and one alone was of the depth of bone by which chip fracture was caused as per the testimony of Dr. A. K. Jain (P.W.11). 15. It appears that the incident occurred without any premeditation and although four injuries were caused by a sharp cutting object, three were only muscle deep and one alone was of the depth of bone by which chip fracture was caused as per the testimony of Dr. A. K. Jain (P.W.11). 15. Looking to the facts under which the crime was committed, the appeal is allowed on the point of sentence and the sentence of imprisonment awarded by learned trial court is reduced from seven years RI to imprisonment of five years. Further, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/-, and default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo the period of one year RI. The amount deposited by the appellant shall be paid as compensation to complainant Pannalal Patel. The period spent in custody shall be adjusted against the sentence of imprisonment. The order of trial court regarding seized property is affirmed. A copy of this order be sent to the court below along with the record for information and compliance.