Man Mohan vs State

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—Man Mohan the appellant was charged for the offence u/s 307 IPC alleging that on 28.12.1982, at about 10:45 AM, he caused with intention or knowledge injuries on Brij Mohan, injuries being under such circumstances that Brij Mohan may have died. At the trial the prosecution examined besides Man Mohan, one Shankar Lal, brother of Brij Mohan and Santok Singh, a shopkeeper in the neighbourhood, as witnesses of the prosecution being PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4.

All 3 witnesses of the prosecution supported the version of the complainant Brij Mohan who stated that on the day in question when he was proceeding on his bicycle in front of the shop of Man Mohan, he i.e. Man Mohan caught him and inflicted fist blows. He fell down. Man Mohan went inside his shop and brought with him a rappi (a sharp edged instrument used for cutting leather or foam). That he was stabbed twice with the rappi, one blow was towards the face and the other on the left shoulder. He fell down. Man Mohan attempted to stab him in his stomach. He turned and as a result the blow struck near his buttock. He cried. People from neighbourhood assembled. That he remained in the hospital for about 9 days.

Shankar Lal, examined as PW-2 fully corroborated Brij Mohan. Even Santok examined as PW-4 fully corroborated Brij Mohan.

In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Man Mohan stated that his he was falsely implicated. He stated that wife of Brij Mohan and his wife are real sisters. At the time when the incident took place he was not at his shop. He was intercepted by the police at Jamna Bridge and was brought to his shop. His wife was weeping and told him that Brij Mohan wanted to take liberties with her. On her raising objections a crowd had gathered, Brij Mohan was beaten by the public and their servant. That their servant has vanished.

Believing the testimony of Brij Mohan as also the testimony of PW-2 and PW-4 who corroborated Brij Mohan, learned Trial Judge proceeded to hold that Man Mohan had assaulted his brother-in-law in the manner deposed to by him. However, taking note of the injury and the manner in which Brij Mohan described the blows inflicted on his person, learned Judge has recorded a conviction u/s 326 IPC for voluntary causing grievous hurt by a sharp edged weapon.

It is urged by learned counsel for Man Mohan that no motive has been imputed to him and in the absence of a motive, it does not stand to logic or reasoning that Man Mohan would attack Brij Mohan. Counsel urges that possibility of incident taking place in the manner explained by Man Mohan in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be ruled out.

I need not unnecessarily hold myself and consider the plausibility of the afore-said submission for the reason when Brij Mohan was cross-examined, a suggestion was put to him to the effect that Brij Mohan had first abused Man Mohan.

The suggestion is self incriminating in respect to the presence of Man Mohan at the time when the incident took place.

It has then sought to be urged that the nature of injuries did not attract the offence u/s 326 IPC. At best, offence is made out u/s 324 IPC.

Dr. B. Bhattacharya who had treated Brij Mohan has been examined as PW-6. He has proved his report as Ex. PW6/A. Learned Trial Judge has considered the said report and testimony of the doctor.

In view of the report and testimony of the doctor and keeping into consideration the nature of the weapon of offence used, view taken by the learned ASJ that offence u/s 326 IPC stands established cannot be faulted.

Thus, I find no infirmity in the judgment and order convicting Man Mohan.

As regards the sentence, Man Mohan has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months and fine of Rs. 200/- has been imposed. In default of payment of fine it has been directed that he would undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident in question relates to 20.12.1982. 25 years have gone by. Counsel further points out that the impugned judgment is dated 24.12.1985 and for 21 years the appeal has remained pending. Counsel submits that the current jurisprudential thinking in the field of criminology is laying greater emphasis on the reformatory aspect of sentencing policy and less on the deterrent aspect of the sentencing policy. Learned counsel has cited the following decisions:-

B.G. Goswami Vs. Delhi Administration,

Ram Narain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,

Narinder kumar Vs. The State (Delhi Administration),

Parveen Kumar Vs. The State,

Kathi Odhabhai Bhimabhai and others Vs. State of Gujarat,

Alam and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan,

Ved Prakash Vs. State of Haryana,

Ashok Kumar Vs. State (Delhi Administration),

Vishnu Nagnath Deshmukh Vs. State of Maharashtra,

I need not copiously note the observations in the afore-noted judgments except the observation from the decision in B.G. Goswami''s case (supra).

The paragraph which is intended to be noted highlights the purpose of sentence. It highlights 3 attributes of a sentence. The first facet is that the accused must realise that he has committed the act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future both as an individual and as a member of the society. The second facet highlights the punitive deterrent aspect of a sentence. The third facet highlights the reformatory aspect of a sentence.

The Court has observed as under:-

Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the consideration already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to hail now after 7 years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when his is also going to lose his job and to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meed the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of find from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same.

Man Mohan has not been involved in any criminal activity after the unfortunate incident in question. He is married and has six children. He is a grand father as of today. When appeal was admitted on 28.2.1986, Man Mohan was admitted to bail. No useful purpose would be served in requiring Man Mohan to surrender and undergo the remaining sentence of the imprisonment.

I accordingly dispose of the appeal by affirming the order of conviction but I reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by Man Mohan. The fine imposed is maintained. Needless to state, if the fine imposed is not paid by Man Mohan, he shall undergo simple imprisonment as directed by the learned ASJ.

Copy of this order be supplied dasti to Man Mohan. LCR be returned.