Lale @ Umesh Kumar And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

This revision has been filed by the applicants under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25/11/2019 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Baidhan, District Singrouli, in Criminal Appeal No.85/2018 whereby the judgment and findings dated 29/08/2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baidhan, in Criminal Case No.1567/2015, with regard to their conviction under section 325 and 325 read with 34 of IPC has been confirmed and the sentence of one year R.I was reduced to the period of three months R.I with fine amount of Rs.800/- each respectively with default stipulations.

Facts giving rise to filing of this revision are that on 13.5.2015 at about 11.00 P.M at village Majholi, Police Station Mada, District Singrauli, accused Lale @ Umesh Kumar and Suresh caught hold of the collar of the victim Rajesh and when he ran after getting rid of them, accused Chhotelal caught hold of him and all the three accused persons assaulted him by kicks and fists and accused Lale @ Umesh Kumar broke the leg of the complainant Rajesh. On a complaint being lodged by the complainant about the incident, Crime No.159/2015 was registered at Police Station Mada and after investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Trial Court.

The defence of the applicants is that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case.

After the trial the applicants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned earlier and the revisional court has also confirmed the conviction but has reduced the sentence, hence this Revision.

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that if the prosecution case is taken as it is against the applicant no.3 Chhotelal, no offence under section 325 read with 34 of the IPC, is made out as the incident has taken place suddenly and the accused persons were not armed with any weapon. Their common intention was only to cause simple injury to the complainant and suddenly accused Lale @ Umesh Kumar kicked him on his leg thereby causing grievous injury to him. For the aforesaid acts, only accused Lale @ Umesh Kumar is mainly responsible and it cannot be said that the applicant no.3 Chhotelal was also having the common intention with the other accused persons, therefore, his conviction and sentence be modified and he be acquitted of the charges under section 325 read with 34 of the IPC, and instead thereof the applicant be convicted under section 323 read with 34 of the IPC.

Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions and prayed for rejection of the Revision.

In view of the aforesaid, the concurrent finding of both the courts below does not require any interference, hence the same is affirmed.

The learned counsel for the applicants is not pressing this revision against applicant nos.1 & 2; Lale @ Umesh Kumar and Suresh with regard to their conviction and sentence under section 325 and 325 read with 34 of the IPC, respectively.

Having gone through the record and considering the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants, in view of this Court there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants as the incident has taken place all of a sudden and all the accused persons started assaulting the complainant for triviable reason and there is not circumstance to arrive at the conclusion that they were having a common intention to cause grievous injury to the victim. Their common intention was to cause simple injury, therefore,  applicant no.3 Chhotelal cannot be convicted by applying the provision of section 34 of the IPC for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC.

So far as the other accused persons Lale @ Umesh Kumar and Suresh are concerned, accused Lale @ Umesh Kumar has caused injury and at that time accused Suresh was helping him in the aforesaid act and, therefore, their conviction is not required to be interfered with.

As far as the conviction of the applicant Chhotelal is concerned, it requires to be modified as his act comes within the purview of Section 323 read with 34 IPC.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction and sentence of applicant nos.1 & 2; Lale @ Umesh Kumar and Suresh under section 325 and 325 read with 34 of the IPC, are upheld. The conviction of applicant no.3 Chhotelal is modified and he is convicted under section 323/34 of the IPC and his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant no.3 Chhotelal with the fine amount as imposed by the trial court.

Applicant no.3 Chhotelal is in custody since 25.11.2019. He be released forthwith subject to payment of the fine amount, if not required in connection with any other case.

This reivision stands partly allowed.

Record of the Courts below be sent back immediately to the concerned court along with a copy of this order for its compliance and necessary action.