Basant Kumar Bhargava and Another vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon''ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta, J.—This judgment passed by this Court shall govern the disposal of above mentioned Criminal Appeals, since both the appeals arise out of common impugned judgment. These criminal appeals are preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 8/8/1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Panna in ST No. 64/1991, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 459 and 307/ 34 of IPC. The appellants Basant Kumar Bhargava and Haleem Bakhs were sentenced for seven years'' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for each count and six months'' rigorous imprisonment was directed for each default of payment of fine, whereas the appellant Munni @ Nunni was sentenced for five years'' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- for each count and two months'' rigorous imprisonment was also directed for each default of payment of fine.

The prosecution''s case, in short, is that in the night of 7th and 8th March, 1991 the victim Shanta Devi (PW-2) was sleeping in her house along with her daughter Manjulata (PW-3) and Meena. Elder daughter Meena was sleeping in another room whereas Shanta Devi and Manjulata were sleeping in the same room. At about 3:00 AM in the night the appellants broke the common wall of the house and entered into the house. The appellant Basant had a baka, appellant Munni @ Nunni had a gupti and appellant Haleem had a knife. Initially they assaulted the victim Meena. On hearing the noise, Shanta Devi tried to rush to the room of the victim Meena, but in the meantime the appellants held her and assaulted her by various weapons. Manjulata tried to save her mother, but ultimately she was also assaulted by the appellants. One neighbour Santosh (PW-4), who was studying in his room, heard the noise, and therefore he came to the spot along with his brother Purshottam and mother Gyanwati (PW-6). After looking them, the appellants ran away. Santosh and Purshottam took the victims in a jeep to the Outpost Kakarhati of Police Station Kotwali, Panna where the complainant Shanta Devi lodged an FIR Ex. P-2. All the victims were sent for their medical legal examination.

Dr. H.N. Sharma (PW-10) examined the victims. He examined the victim Meena and gave a report Ex. P-13C. He found four incised wounds to the victim Meena situated at the left temple, left hand, right index finger and left neck. The blood pressure of the patient was low as much blood had oozed from the wounds. She was referred for the X-ray examination and treatment. Dr. H.N. Sharma (PW-10) had examined the victim Manjulata and gave a report Ex. P-14C. He found five incised wounds on her person situated at the left hand, right wrist, right tempo-parietal region on the head, right ear and on the back of neck. She was also referred for radiological examination and treatment. Dr. Sharma also examined the victim Shanta Devi and gave his report Ex. P-15C. Seven incised wounds were found to the victim Shanta Devi situated at right hand, left thumb, left temple, left parietal region on the head, left cheek and jaw, right temporal region and on the mid of her head. Her position was critical. She was referred for radiological examination and treatment. Dr. G.P. Singh (PW-5) examined all the three victims radiologically and he found that the victim Manjulata sustained a fracture of second metacarpal bond on the left hand. Similarly, the victim Meena sustained a fracture of fourth metacarpal bond in right hand, whereas the victim Shanta Devi sustained a fracture in left fronto parietal bone and also her two fingers in right hand viz. middle and ring were absent, because the same were chopped off. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the CJM Panna, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Panna.

The appellants-accused abjured their guilt. They took a specific plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity. In defence, Mohd. Sadik (DW-1) was examined to show that there was no arrangement of light in that night, because there was blackout in that village and hence the victim Shanta Devi could not know as to who assaulted her and her daughters.

The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 459 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Shri Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants Basant and Nunni Bai has submitted that no injury was caused to the victims which were fatal in nature. Since much blood was oozed, therefore the position of the victims appeared to be critical at the time of their medico legal examination, but no injury was sufficient to cause their death. There was no common intention of the culprits to kill any of the victims, and therefore no offence u/s 307 of IPC is made out against the appellants. Similarly, no offence u/s 459 of IPC is made out. It is also submitted that there was no arrangement of light and the victims could not identify the actual culprits. There is a lot of contradiction between the statements of the witnesses and their previous statements. In the alternate, it is submitted that at present the appellant Nunni Bai is an old person of 70 years, who has faced the trial and appeal for last 21 years, and therefore where she remained in the custody for five and half months in the past, she may not be sent to the jail again. Similarly, it is submitted that the appellant Basant remained in the custody for four and half months, and therefore his sentence may be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody.

Shri A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant Haleem has argued in the same tone. He has submitted that there was no enmity between the appellant Haleem and the victims, therefore there was no need to the appellants to visit the house of the victims. Actually, the appellant Haleem had an enmity with the witness Santosh and his family members, and therefore he was falsely implicated in the matter at the instigation of Santosh etc. It is also submitted that the appellant Haleem also suffered the trial and appeal for last 21 years and remained in the custody for a longer period, and therefore he may not be sent to the jail again.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be correct and there is no basis by which any interference may be done in the appeal.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be considered as to whether the appeal of the appellants can be accepted? And whether the sentence directed by the trial Court against the appellants can be reduced?

In the present case, Shanta Devi (PW-2), Manjulata (PW-3), Santosh (PW-4) and Gyanwati (PW-6) were examined as eye-witnesses. They have stated that initially the appellants assaulted the victim Meena and thereafter when Shanta Devi called the victim Meena, on hearing her shouts the appellants held the victim Shanta Devi and assaulted her by various sharp cutting weapons causing so many injuries. Her two fingers were amputated by the appellants. The testimony of these witnesses is duly corroborated by the FIR Ex. P-2, which was lodged within one hour of the incident, whereas the victims were taken in a jeep by Santosh and Purshottam. Similarly, the testimony of the witnesses is duly corroborated by the Dr. H.N. Sharma (PW-10), who has proved the injuries caused to the victims Meena and Shanta Devi. The description of the injuries is not required to be mentioned in detail in the judgment. However, the victim Meena sustained four incised wounds, Manjulata sustained five incised wounds and Shanta Devi sustained seven incised wounds. Dr. G.P. Singh (PW-5) has proved that the victim Manjulata sustained a fracture of second metacarpal bond on the left hand, whereas the victim Meena sustained a fracture of fourth metacarpal bond in right hand and the victim Shanta Devi sustained a fracture in left fronto parietal bone and her two fingers in right hand were chopped off.

According to the evidence given by Dr. H.N. Sharma and Dr. G.P. Singh, it is apparent that the victims sustained grave injuries by sharp cutting weapons. So far as the nature of injuries is concerned, initially Dr. H.N. Sharma has mentioned that cumulative effect of the injuries of each of the victims was dangerous to the life, but by any such injury no vital part of the body of any of the victims was damaged, and therefore it cannot be said that those injuries were fatal in nature. It is apparent that the appellants assaulted on the hands and legs of the victims. Victim Shanta Devi had received some blows on her head, temporal region and cheek, but those assaults were not forceful, and therefore though she sustained a fracture of fronto parietal region, but no brain hemorrhage was caused to her. She was found conscious by Dr. Sharma at the time of her first examination. Looking at the attitude of the appellants, their overt-acts do not fall within any category of Section 300 of IPC, and therefore it would be apparent that they did not intend to kill any of the victims. As it is discussed that except the injury of the head caused to the victim Shanta Devi, no fatal injury was found. Since there was no brain hemorrhage to the victim Shanta Devi, therefore the fracture caused on her head was not fatal in nature. Under such circumstances, neither the appellants were intended to kill any of the victims nor they caused any fatal injury to the victims so that anyone of them could die. Therefore, the injuries caused to the victims would fall within the purview of Section 320 of IPC, and therefore the injuries were grievous in nature. Hence the offence committed by the appellants would be u/s 326 of IPC and they could not be convicted for the offence u/s 307 of IPC.

The learned counsel for the appellants have tried to locate the contradictions between the statements of various witnesses and their previous statements. No material contradiction is visible in the case. It is apparent from the very beginning that the victim Meena was sleeping in one room, whereas Shanta Devi and Manjulata were sleeping in another room. The injuries were caused by each of the appellants and the narration of the witnesses was duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The overt-act of each of the appellants is very well mentioned by the witnesses. There is no material contradiction visible in their evidence or with their previous statements. Some minor contradiction relating to the weapon etc. is visible, but it is apparent that each of the appellants had sharp cutting weapon. The FIR Ex. P-2 was lodged within one hour of the incident, whereas looking to the injuries of the victims, some time was required to stop their bleeding etc. and to arrange for the vehicle to take them, and therefore the FIR has been lodged within a reasonable period and the same should be believed.

The learned counsel for the defence gave some suggestion to the victim Shanta Devi that the victim Meena found with the witness Santosh (PW-4), and therefore Santosh assaulted them in such a manner and thereafter Shanta Devi shifted the guilt of Santosh upon the appellants due to enmity. It is true that there was an enmity between Shanta Devi and Munni @ Nunni. Both of them are sisters-in-laws and there was a property dispute between their husbands, who were brothers. However, the suggestion given by the defence counsel appears to be baseless. If Santosh was the person, who assaulted the victims, then it was not possible for the victims to immediately visit the Police Outpost with Santosh and his brother Purshottam in their jeep. Secondly, Santosh would have run away instead of staying due to his guilt. He could not help the victims in lodging the FIR. The learned defence counsel has suggested such a defence to the witnesses only to impeach the credibility of Santosh and to show that there was some illicit relations of the witness Santosh and the victim Meena, but such suggestion appears to be baseless and was nowhere established by the defence evidence. Therefore, that suggestion has no affect in the prosecution evidence.

The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that there was no arrangement of light in the room, and therefore the victims could not see the actual culprits. It is strange that the defence counsel did not ask any of the witnesses about arrangement of the light, but the defence witness Mohd. Sadik (DW-1) was examined to show that there was a blackout in that night in his village. Such type of evidence has no meaning, because such type of fact must have been proved by the authority of the Electricity Board that there was blackout in that night in the particular village. The witness Santosh claimed that he was studying in that night. Similarly, the victim Meena was also studying in the night, and therefore it would be apparent that there was light arrangement in the night. Secondly, the wall was broken, which was between the houses of the appellant Basant and the victims. That wall could not be broken by anyone else, if there was no arrangement of light and the appellants were implicated on the basis of enmity, then as to why the appellant Haleem Bakhs was implicated, because there was enmity of the appellant Haleem with the victims and their family members. The victims were taken to the police station as early as possible so that their treatment could be started, and therefore there was no span of time with the victims to tell the name of enemies in place of actual culprits. The witnesses Santosh and Gyanwati, who reached to the spot after hearing the hue and cry of the victims, they also corroborated that the appellants were the persons, who assaulted the victims. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the witnesses could not identify the appellants due to darkness.

The enmity is a double edged weapon, that means due to enmity the appellants could assault the victims or due to that enmity the appellants could be falsely implicated by the victims, if the victims could not know about the actual culprits. In the present case, the wall between the houses of the victims and the appellant Basant was found broken and that wall was broken either by the members of the family of the victims or by the culprits. There was no need to the victims to break such a wall, and therefore looking to that broken wall, it is clear that the appellants were the actual culprits, who could have done such a crime. Under such circumstances, the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the appellants were the persons, who assaulted the victims by sharp cutting weapons in such a brutal manner. The appellants could not create any doubt in the testimony of eye-witnesses. The testimony of eye-witnesses is duly corroborated by the FIR Ex. P-2 and the medical evidence given by Dr. H.N. Sharma and Dr. G.P. Singh. Hence, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellants assaulted the victims Shanta Devi, Manjulata and Meena by sharp cutting weapons.

The incident took place in the midnight and the victims were sleeping, therefore it cannot be said that any right of private defence was accrued to the appellants or any sudden or grave provocation was given by the victims. The appellants were armed with various sharp cutting weapons and they knew the result of their overt-acts, and therefore the assault caused by them were voluntarily assault to the victims, hence it is proved beyond that the appellants assaulted the victims by sharp cutting weapons voluntarily causing them grievous hurt. Therefore, each of the appellants is guilty for the offence u/s 326 of IPC.

All of them had participated in the crime. It is clear that appellant Basant chopped off the fingers of the victim Shanta Devi, whereas the appellant Munni @ Nunni assaulted on her head causing a fracture and the appellant Haleem also assaulted the victims Manjulata and Meena, and therefore their overt-acts indicate their common intention. If the appellant Haleem had no common intention, then what was the necessity to him to accompany the appellant Basant and Munni. Under such circumstances, with the help of Section 34 of IPC, each of the appellants can be held guilty for the offence u/s 326 of IPC. The offence u/s 326 of IPC is inferior offence of the similar nature as of offence u/s 307 of IPC. Therefore, the appellants can be convicted u/s 326 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC under the charge of Section 307 of IPC.

So far as the offence u/s 459 of IPC is concerned, it is proved beyond doubt that the appellants broke a wall which was between the houses of both the parties and entered into the house, and therefore they have done house breaking. There was no entry for the appellants by which they could go inside the house, and therefore it is apparent that house-breaking had been done by the appellants. However, the learned trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence u/s 459 of IPC, whereas one ingredient of that offence is missing. For the offence u/s 459 of IPC, one important ingredient is that assault should be done to complete the house breaking. If the assault has been done during the commitment of lurking house-trespass or house breaking, then offence u/s 459 of IPC is made out, but if assault is done after completion of the house breaking, then the offence u/s 459 cannot be constituted. In the present case, house breaking was done to enter into the house of the victims and no assault was caused during the house breaking, and therefore no offence u/s 459 of IPC is made out against the appellants. But looking to their overt-acts, offence u/s 458 of IPC is made out against the appellants, which is inferior offence of the same nature, and therefore the appellant can be convicted for that offence u/s 458 of IPC under the charge of Section 459 of IPC.

So far as sentence is concerned, it is true that the appellants remained in the custody for two and half months during the trial and thereafter three months during the appeal. The appellant Munni @ Nunni remained in the custody for eight days during the trial and thereafter she remained in the custody for two months during the appeal. It is true that the appellants have faced the trial and appeal for last 19-21 years but they were on bail. They assaulted three different victims in a brutal manner to settle their civil dispute, and therefore looking to the overt-acts of the appellants, no lenient view can be taken against them. However, looking to the offence u/s 326 of IPC, three years'' RI may be sufficient for them. Since the sentence has to run concurrently on all counts for all the victims, and therefore the trial Court has not directed three different sentences for three victims. Similarly, at present three different sentences are not required to be directed by this Court for three victims. The offence u/s 458 of IPC is part of offence done by the appellants in assaulting the victims, and therefore the appellants can be sentenced for two years'' RI for the offence u/s 458 of IPC.

So far as the sentence of appellant Munni @ Nunni is concerned, it is true that at present she is 72 years old and she has also suffered the trial and appeal for last 19-21 years. The trial Court has also inflicted some lesser sentence against the appellant Munni @ Nunni. She remained in the custody for two and half months in all. She had participated in the crime equally with the other appellants, but looking to her age etc., it would not proper not to send the appellant Munni @ Nunni to the jail again, but some heavy fine is to be imposed upon her.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals of the present appellants are partly allowed. Their conviction and sentence directed by the trial Court under Sections 307 /34, 459 of IPC are hereby set aside, but they are convicted for commission of offence u/s 326 /34 and 458 of IPC. Appellants Basant Kumar Bhargava and Haleem Bakhs are sentenced for three years and two years'' RI for the aforesaid crime respectively. The sentences shall run concurrently. Their custody period during the trial and appeal would be adjusted in the sentence. The appellant Munni @ Nunni is also convicted for the offence u/s 326 /34 and 458 of IPC and is sentenced to the period which she has already undergone in the custody. Fine of Rs. 20,000/- and 10,000/- is imposed respectively upon her for the aforesaid offences. She is directed to deposit the entire fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today, failing which she has to undergo one year and six months'' RI respectively. Since it is default sentence for non-payment of fine, therefore it shall not run concurrently.

The appellants are on bail, and therefore their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. The appellants Basant Kumar Bhargava and Haleem Bakhs are directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith and the trial Court shall send them to the jail for execution of remaining jail sentence. The appellant Munni @ Nunni shall deposit the fine amount before the trial Court within the stipulated period, otherwise default sentence shall be executed. A copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the trial Court with its record for information and compliance.