Mahesh And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

[1] The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellants to challenge the judgment dated 13/02/2017 passed in Sessions Trial

No.114/2010; whereby, the Trial Court convicted appellant No.1-Mahesh under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and appellant No.2-Lokendra

under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo 40 days imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation.

[2] The facts necessary to be stated for disposal of the instant Criminal Appeal are that as per prosecution case, on 2nd February, 2010 at about 10

PM, when complainant Hukum Singh and his brother Mahendra Singh were inside their house, appellant No.1-accused Mahesh started abusing them

while standing outside the house of the complainant. When complainant and his brother came out of the house and asked Mahesh not to abuse then

appellant No.1-accused Mahesh alleged that the complainant had defeated him in the election of Sarpanch. The complainant again objected, then

appellant No.2-accused Lokendra hurdled filthy abuses and provoked accused Mahesh to beat the complainant, on this appellant No.1-accused

Mahesh fired a gunshot on the complainant. The matter was reported to Police Station Pahargarh, District Morena where FIR was registered at

Crime No.08/2010 against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. Complainant

Hukum Singh and his brother Mahendra were sent for medical examination to Community Health Center, Pahargarh. During investigation, spot map

was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. The appellants were arrested on 05/02/2010. After due investigation, charge-sheet was

filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class Sabalgarh, District Morena, who communicated the case to the Court of Session and ultimately, it was

transferred to First Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh District Morena for trial.

[3] The appellants abjured their guilt by taking a plea that they had been falsely implicated. They further stated that the complainant party had

assaulted on the appellants with pharsa and lathi and a report against the said incident had been lodged by the appellants, therefore, false FIR as a

counter blast had been lodged against the appellants.

[4] The Trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned above. Against

their conviction, the appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal.

[5] Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the judgment passed by the Trial Court overlooking the entire evidence available on record is

perverse and contrary to law. The prosecution story, as projected, is not supported by medical evidence. It was alleged in the FIR that the appellants

had fired Katta whereas the doctor, in his medical report, has not mentioned about the injury alleged to be caused by firearm. The Trial Court had

based its judgment on the statements of interested witnesses, which are contradictory in nature. In fact the complainant party had assaulted on the

appellants, against which the police had registered a cross-case at Crime No.11/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 504 of

IPC. On these premises, learned counsel for the appellants has prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and for

acquittal of the appellants.

[6] Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of this instant Criminal

Appeal.

[7] Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.

[8] On perusal of the record, it is apparent that complainant Hukum Singh (PW/3) has stated in his statement that eye-witnesses of the incident were

Rajendra Dhakad (PW/5) and Mahendra Singh Dhakad, S/o- Raghunath Singh (PW/10). The Trial Court observed in paragraph 13 of its judgment

that prosecution witnesses Rajendra Dhakad (PW/5) and Mahendra Singh (PW/10) had not supported the prosecution story and were declared hostile,

therefore, the prosecution case rests on the evidence of Hukum Singh (PW/3) and Mahendra Singh S/o Ramdayal (PW/4).

[9] PW/8- Dr. M.L. Vyas, Block Medical Officer, has stated in his statement that he had examined victim Hukum Singh and found injuries on his

body between chest and collar bone, size 2x1x0.5 cm, which was a lacerated wound and margins were irregular. He has also stated that he advised

X-ray for the aforesaid injury. This witness has stated during his evidence after perusing X-ray plates that the injuries of Hukum Singh were not found

to be caused by firearm. He has further stated that as per X-ray report, no external article (bullet) was found in the body of Hukum Singh and he

opined that injuries to Hukum Singh were caused by hard and blunt object. This witness has again specified that injuries found between chest and

collar bone were not the injuries caused by firearm. Rather, this witness has opined the possibility of such injuries by fall on rough surface, therefore,

evidence of Hukum Singh (PW/3) and Mahendra Singh (PW/4) is not corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. M.L. Vyas (PW/8).

[10] It is on record that political rivalry was there between the parties and elections were due, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly observed in its

judgment in paragraph 28 that cause of altercation was future election for the post of Sarpanch. There is no any specific evidence with regard to the

injuries alleged to be caused to Mahendra Singh and evidence given by Mahendra Singh (PW/4) is not supported with the medical evidence.

[11] On the basis of above discussion, it is apparent that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses.

The medical evidence is not supported by the statements of victims. Dr. M.L. Vyas (PW/8) has opined that the injuries found on the body of victim

might be self-inflicted injuries.

[12] In above view of the matter, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

[13] Consequently, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13/02/2017 in Sessions Trial No.114/2010 passed by

the Trial Court is hereby set-aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. Fine

amount, if deposited, be refunded to the appellants.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Trial Court along-with records.