Kalu @ Gurdayal Singh vs State of M.P.

S.C. Vyas, J.

Appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 236 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 4 years rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 1,500/- by Addl. Session Judge, Badwah, in Session Trial No. 50/1993 by judgment dated 23/02/1994, feeling aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and sentenced awarded by learned Addl.Session Judge this appeal has been preferred.

As per the case of the prosecution complainant Balkrishan, on 10/05/ 1991 at about 10:30 p.m. was sitting in the shop of Satya Vijay Transport, Indore, Rd. Badwah, then appellant Kalu came their and called him. When he reached near appellant kalu all of a sudden appellant armed with ustara (knife), assaulted on his face, stomach, chest and head. He sustained many incised wound because of the assault and the matter was reported by him to the police. On the basis of which offence u/s 307 IPC by Police Station Badwah, was registered vide Exhibit P-1. The complainant Balkrishna was sent for medical examination. Dr. Sandhya Swami examined complainant Balkrishana and found as many as 8 incised would on his person. One wound was found grievous in nature, which was on his face near nose and the medical officer, opined that this injury may cause permanent disfiguration of his face and therefore, it was grievous in nature. Statement of witnesses u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded during investigation. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed before judicial Magistrate First Class, Badwah, who committed the matter to the Session Court.

The appellant absurd his guilt during trial and pleaded innocence. However, or trial Learned Addl. Session Judge found him guilty u/s 326 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

Shri Vikas Yadav, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that trial court has committed illegality in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 326 of IPC as there was no evidence on record to prove that the appellant has caused any grievous injuries on the person of the complainant. He also submitted that the appellant want to challenge the findings of guilt recorded by learned trial court and also submitted that as the matter has been settled by the parties outside the court and complainant himself does not want any jail sentence to be imposed on the appellant, therefore, he prays that appellant be released on the sentence already undergone by him during trial and after conviction by the trial court during pendency of this appeal.

Whereas learned public prosecutor submitted that though the injuries, which were found on the person of the complainant were not grievous but as the injury no. 2, which was found on the face of the complainant was sufficient to cause disfiguration of the complaint, therefore, the offence committed by the present appellant was rightly held to be an one punishable u/s 326 of IPC and looking to the number of injuries caused by the present appellant to the complainant the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court does not call for any interference in the appeal.

Dr. Sandhya Swami (PW-5), who examined the complainant immediately after the incident found the following injuries on his person:

Incised wound of 10" X 2" in left side of the abdomen, which was muscle deep.

Incised wound of 5 cm X 5 cm bleeding on left side of nose.

Incised wound of 5 cm X 0.5 cm skin deep on left arm.

Incised wound of 2 cm X 05 cm on temporal region.

Incised wound of 1.5 cm X 0.5 cm on fronto parietal region.

Incised wound of 4 cm X 0.5 cm X 1 cm on right fore arm.

Incised wound of 4 cm X 0.5 cm on left fore arm.

Incised wound of 3 cm X 0.5 cm infra clavicular region.

Doctor certified that ail the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by hard and sharp object. However. In respect of injury no.2 is concern it was opined that this injury is grievous as due to this injury there was disfiguration of face and deformity of nose.

Dr. Sandhya Swami (PW-5) had given her opinion regarding injury no.2 of the date of examination of injury, which was the date of incident, as the injury was examined by her on the same date when it was caused.

It is difficult to digest that such opinion can be expressed on that date to the effect that this injury will cause permanent deformity or disfiguration of face without seeing the injured person after healing of injury.

Prosecution has not adduced any evidence regarding medical examination of the injured person after healing of injuries or even there is no note of the trial court to the effect that when Balkrishna appeared before that court then the deformity or disfiguration was noted by the trial court. In absence of such further examination or such note of learned trial court it has become doubtful as to whether this injury had really caused permanent disfiguration or deformity on the face of the complainant and therefore, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the applicant u/s 326 of IPC.

As it has not been proved that any injury which were found on the person of the complainant Balkrishna was grievous in nature, therefore, looking to the entire evidence available on record it can only safely be held proved that appellant has caused simple injuries by means of sharp cutting object. Complainant Balkrishna and witnesses Gaindalal (PW-3) have also proved that present appellant has assaulted complainant Balkrishan and had caused injury by means of sharp cutting object Ustara (knife).

Therefore, as discussed above on the facts and circumstances of the case offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC only is made out against the present appellant. This offence is compoundable. The complainant and accused have jointly submitted an application for composition of this offence as both person belong to the same place and they have amicably settled the dispute outside the court, therefore, permission to compound the offence is granted and the joint application for compromise submitted by both the parties is accepted and as a result of this compromise the appellant is acquitted from the charge of the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC.

The appeal is thus allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court u/s 326 of IPC is set aside and he is hereby acquitted from all charges.