Kaliram and Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—The applicants were convicted for the offence punishable u/s 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC and each sentenced for 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- respectively by the learned JMFC (Shri Amit Ranjan Samadhiya), Amarwada, District Chhindwara in criminal case No. 974/2010 vide judgment dated 20.6.2012. In criminal appeal No. 224/2012 vide judgment dated 13.2.2013, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Amarwada, District Chhindwara dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicants have preferred the present revision. The prosecution''s case, in short, is that, on 26.11.2010, the complainant Santosh had lodged an FIR, Ex. P/1 at Police Station Harai, District Chhindwara that he was having agricultural land at village Surli (Police Station Harai, District Chhindwara). On 26.11.2010, at about 9 p.m., the applicants went to the house of the complainant Santosh and demanded their share in the agricultural land. When Atarwati Bai, mother of the complainant Santosh denied for giving any share then, they started abusing her and thereafter, they assaulted the victim Santosh by sticks. Thereafter, when Atarwati Bai tried to save the victim Santosh then, the applicants assaulted her also. The victims Santosh and Atarwati Bai were sent for their medico legal examination. It was found that the victim Atarwati Bai sustained a fracture in shaft of radius and ulna bone in the left forearm. After due investigation a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.

The applicants abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea in the matter. However, they have stated that they were innocent. In defence, one Amaklal (D.W. 1) was examined.

The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amarwada, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned above, whereas, the appeal filed by the applicants was dismissed in toto.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Looking to the statements given by Santosh (P.W. 1), Pushpa (P.W. 2), Atarwati Bai (P.W. 3) and FIR, Ex. P/1 duly lodged by the victim Santosh alongwith medical report proved by Dr. Veerendra (P.W. 7), it is apparent that the testimony of the victims Santosh and Atarwati Bai is believable. The applicants were the persons, who assaulted the victims. The defence witness has stated that it was Santosh who assaulted his mother. Actually he was assaulting the applicant Kaliram but, by mistake, injury was caused to the victim Atarwati Bai. However, Santosh and Atarwati Bai had sustained so many injuries and therefore, it cannot be said that it was Santosh who assaulted the applicant Kaliram and by mistake, injury was caused to the victim Atarwati Bai. The testimony of Amaklal (D.W. 1) is not at all reliable. Under such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly convicted the applicants for the offence punishable under sections 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC for the injuries caused to the victims Atarwati Bai and Santosh respectively.

So far as the sentence is concerned, it is true that the applicants were the first offenders and therefore, only fine could be imposed upon them for the injuries caused to the victims Santosh. Similarly, 3 years rigorous imprisonment granted by the trial Court for the offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC appears to be harsh. As argued by the learned counsel for the applicants, the applicants remained in the custody for 2 months, which appears to be appropriate jail sentence for offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC because they suffered their appearance before various Courts during the trial, appeal and revision in last 3 years. They were the first offenders and only one bone of the victim Atarwati Bai was broken. Under such circumstances, sentence of the applicants can be reduced to the period for which they remained in the custody but, fine amount should be enhanced. Looking to their overt-act and injury caused to the victim Atarwati Bai, it would be proper that the fine for offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC may be enhanced from a sum of Rs. 500/- to a sum of Rs. 7,000/-.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicants is hereby partly allowed. Conviction directed against the applicants for offence punishable u/s 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC is hereby maintained but, sentence is reduced to the period for which they remained in the custody. There is no change in the fine amount for offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC, whereas fine amount for offence punishable u/s 325/34 of IPC is enhanced from a sum of Rs. 500/- to a sum of Rs. 7,000/-. The applicants are directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today, failing which each of them shall undergo for 6 months rigorous imprisonment. If fine is deposited then, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- be provided to the victim Atarwati Bai, Widow of Late Shri Hariram, R/o Village Surli, Police Station Harai, District Chhindwara, by way of a compensation.

The applicants are on bail. Their presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged, after deposit of the fine amount.

A copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below along with their records for information and compliance. Attention of the trial Court is invited to the provisions of section 68 of IPC.