Amar Singh and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon''ble Shri A.K. Sharma, J.—Appellants have filed this appeal u/s 374 of Cr.P.C. against judgment dt. 27.3.1998 passed in S.T. No. 148/1995 by learned Additional Sessions Judge Sardarpur District Dhar, M.P. whereby appellant No.1 Amarsingh has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and fine of Rs. 200/-has been imposed upon him and remaining appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and fine Rs. 200/-each with default stipulation. The brief facts of the case are that, on 14.12.1994 at about 6.30 pm complainant Antarsingh Lodha was sitting in front of his house with his guests Ramesh and Kanhaiya. It is alleged that appellants came there and started abusing complainant. When complainant abused the appellants he was caught by Mangilal, Leelabai, Prembai and Amarsingh inflicted knife blow on the left side of abdomen after threatening him with death. On report of appellant, case was registered against him at PS. Amjhera and after filing of challan, learned Trial Court convicted appellant Amarsingh for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC and remaining appellants for the offence punishable u/s 307/34 of IPC.

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellants have filed this appeal on the ground that learned Trial Court is not justified in convicting them looking to the discrepancies in the evidence and in the absence of any evidence regarding injury sustained by the victim was grievous or dangerous to life.

For disposal of this appeal, the main question for consideration is that, whether learned Trial Court is justified in convicting the appellants by impugned judgment.

Learned Counsel for the appellants have drawn attention towards the fact that in the FIR Ex.P/7 the weapon used has been mentioned as Knife while at the time of evidence, witnesses have alleged that injury was caused by Amarsingh by Gupti. Ramesh PW-2 has not stated anything regarding weapon used at the time of offence. While Antarsingh PW-3, Durgalal PW-4 have stated that Gupti was used by the accused Amarsingh at the time of incidence.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention towards the statement of Dr.O.P.Goyal PW-15 who in his cross-examination has stated that injured has told him that he was injured by Knife. He has stated that injury was grievous in nature and was dangerous to life but in cross-examination he has stated that injury was dangerous to life in the absence of treatment.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has cited judgment of this Court passed in the matter of Kamdeo Vs. State of M.P., in which it has been held that accused allegedly gave Knife blow to victim and doctor opined about the injury that if it was not treated within time, same could have been caused death of the victim but in support of this opinion, no reliable reasons were stated by him, therefore, appellant is found guilty only u/s 324 instead of Section 307 of IPC and appellant is acquitted from the charges u/s 307 of IPC instead he is held guilty u/s 324 of IPC. Since there is no evidence that injury was dangerous to life and doctor has given opinion that injury was dangerous to life only if it was not treated. Since there is no evidence that injuries sustained by the victim was grievous in nature, therefore, appellant Amarsingh can be held guilty only for offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC and other appellants can be held guilty only for the offence punishable u/s 324/34 of IPC.

Therefore, appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant Amarsingh for the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC and other appellants for the offence punishable u/s 307/34 of IPC is set-aside and appellant Amarsingh is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC and other appellants are convicted for the offence punishable u/s 324/34 of IPC. So far as the sentence is concerned, appellant Amarsingh who allegedly inflicted Knife blow was in custody for 38 days during trial and other appellants were in custody for 5 days during trial and after passing of impugned judgment, appellants have been in custody from 27.3.1998 to 18.5.1998. Considering the fact that appellants have been facing trial since the year 1994 and they are first offenders, the period already undergone by them is sufficient to meet the ends of justice, considering the long period of litigation.

Therefore, sentence of appellants is reduced to already undergone and the fine amount deposited by them shall be treated for the offence for which they have been convicted by this judgment. Fine amount has already been deposited by them. The bail bonds of the appellants are discharged.

Against the impugned judgment another Criminal Appeal No. 472/1998 has been filed. After filing of instant appeal by order dt. 5.8.1998, both appeals have been ordered to be listed for final hearing together. Since both the appeals are filed against same judgment, therefore, in the light of this judgment, no separate judgment is required for Criminal Appeal No. 472/1998.

This judgment will govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 472/1998 also. A copy of this judgment be kept in the record of Criminal Appeal No. 472/1998.