Bhan Singh Thakur vs State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—The applicant was convicted of the offence under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced to one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- vide judgment dated 22.9.2011 passed by the JMFC Jatara, District Tikamgarh in Criminal Case No. 1807/2006. In Criminal Appeal No. 469/2011, vide judgment dated 15.5.2013 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh maintained the conviction and sentenced was reduced to three months R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments, the applicant has preferred the present revision.

The prosecution''s case in short is that on 11.10.2006 at about 4:00 p.m., Amol Singh (PW-1) went to his field situated at village Tapriyan (Police Station Palera, District Tikamgarh), he saw that some buffaloes were grazing in the field. He started removing those buffaloes from the field then, the applicant entered at the spot and objected the activity of the complainant. He gave a powerful blow of the stick on the head of the complainant and thereafter, he further gave 2-3 blows. The complainant went to the police station, Palera and lodged an FIR. He was sent to the hospital for medico legal examination and treatment. Dr. Suresh Sharma (PW-7) examined the complainant at Community Health Centre, Palera and gave his report Ex.P/6. He found two injuries to the complainant. One was on his head and second was on his left side of chest caused by hard and blunt object. In the x-ray report, a fracture of rib was found to the complainant. After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the trial Court.

The applicant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the matter and no defence evidence was adduced.

The learned J.M.F.C. after considering the prosecution''s evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above, whereas in appeal, sentence was modified by the appellate Court, which is mentioned as above.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The complainant Amol Singh (PW-1) has stated that when he was removing the buffaloes from his field, the applicant started quarreling and assaulted him with a stick. However, Kumesh @ Kummer Singh (PW-2), Ramnath @ Rambagus (PW-3) etc. have turned hostile. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to enmity, the sole testimony of the complainant cannot be believed.

The applicant could not prove any previous enmity with the complainant and therefore, there was no reason to the complainant to implicate the applicant falsely. Since initially, the police found that a non-cognizable offence was done by the applicant, the FIR was registered in Roznamcha no. 402 on 11.10.2006 which was not proved by the prosecution. However, looking to the statement of the complainant, it appears that he had timely lodged the FIR moreover Dr. Suresh Sharma (PW-7) has proved the injuries of the complainant, which were found on the same place, where the complainant has stated that he sustained assaults. Hence, in absence of any enmity, the sole testimony of the complainant which is duly corroborated with the fact that he had lodged the FIR soon after the incident and by Dr. Suresh Sharma is acceptable. Hence, by the testimony of the complainant Amol Singh, it is proved beyond doubt that the applicant assaulted the victim Amol Singh causing him a fracture on his rib.

The applicant did not take any plea of right of private defence or sudden or grave provocation. If the complainant was removing the buffaloes from his field then, by such action, no right of private defence accrued to the applicant and no sudden or grave provocation caused to him. He gave 2-3 blows by a stick, whereas he knew the result of his blows after first blow and therefore, it is established that the applicant assaulted the complainant Amol Singh without any right of private defence or sudden or grave provocation and after knowing the result of such assaults therefore, it is proved that the applicant had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant. Both the Courts below have rightly convicted the applicant of offence under Section 325 of the IPC. There is no any reason to interfere in the concurrent findings given by both the Courts below.

So far as the sentence is concerned, the incident took place in the year 2006 and the applicant has faced the trial, appeal and the revision for last eight years. He was the first offender and an old person. He sudden lost his tamper and therefore, he assaulted the victim without any enmity. Looking to such all circumstances, where the appellant remained in the custody for 8-10 days during the appeal and revision, it would be proper to reduce his jail sentence to the period for which he remained in the custody by enhancement of some fine amount.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. The conviction of the offence under Section 325 of the IPC is hereby maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody. The fine amount is enhanced from the sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the sum of Rs. 7,000/-. The applicant is directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount before the trial Court within three months from today, failing which he shall undergo for six months R.I. If fine is deposited then, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- be provided to the victim Amol Singh S/o Gulab Singh R/o Village Tapriyan Chouhabn, Police Station, Palera District Tikamgarh as compensation.

At present, the applicant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged when he deposits the remaining fine amount.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court and the appellate Court alongwith their records for information and compliance.

The JMFC, Jatara District Tikamgarh is directed that if fine is not deposited within the stipulated period then, the Provision of Section 68 of the IPC shall be followed in recovery of fine.