Manoharsingh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.Câ€) against the

judgment dated 03/07/2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khachrod, District-Ujjain, in Sessions Trial No.22/98, whereby the appellant has been

convicted for offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 506-B of IPC, 1860, sentenced to undergo 7 years, 6 months and 6 months R.I, and fine of

Rs.1000/-, Rs.250/-, Rs.250/- respectively with usual default stipulation.

Brief facts leading to filing of the case are that complainant-Sajjanbai was residing at village Bheelsura and appellant-Manoharsingh, who is their

relative was living opposite to their house. Ten days before the alleged incident, the appellant brought a woman to his house who belongs to his

descent (gotra). Therefore, on 20/07/1997 complainant's husband Bharatsingh explained the appellant that what he has done was not a good act.

Thereafter the appellant hurled abuses upon the complainant and Bharatsingh. Complainant tried to convince the appellant, however, he went to his

house, came out armed with Dhariya and started hurling abuses. At that time complainant's son-Meharbansingh came out and stopped him from

hurling abuses, then the appellant assaulted Meharbansingh with Dhariya due to which he sustained injury on his shoulder. Again appellant gave a

dhariya blow on Mehrabansingh's head. Complainant went in rescue therefore, her finger got cut. Further allegation is that the appellant assaulted the

complainant's husband â€" Bharatsingh also. Complainant along with her husband and son went to Police Station Nagda immediately and filed

complaint. On the basis of which FIR bearing Crime No.260/1997 was registered against the appellant for offence under Sections 324, 294, 307, 506

of IPC, 1860. Injured persons were sent to hospital for medical treatment.

During investigation Police reached the spot and prepared spot map, seized blood stained earth and plain earth, recorded the statement of the

witnesses, arrested the appellant and at his instance, recovered Dhariya from his house. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed

against the appellant for offence under Sections 307, 324 and 506-II of IPC, 1860 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kachrod, District Ujjain

who committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain.

Appellant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and examined Chatarsingh (D.W.1), Rambabai

(D.W.2) and Pavansingh (D.W.3) in his defence.

Trial Court, after considering the submissions advance by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the entire evidence on record,

convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 506-II of IPC, 1860, sentenced to undergo 7 years, 6 months and 6 months

R.I, and fine of Rs.1000/-, Rs.250/-, Rs.250/-respectively with usual default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant has expressly given up his challenge to the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant is

concerned. In other words, the learned counsel for the appellant accepted the finding of his conviction on merits, apparently, finding no merit therein,

he challenged the quantum of sentence (7 years R.I) alone. It is submitted that the appellant is a poor labourer and sole bread earner of his family.

The appellant and complainant parties are relatives residing in same street, they have settled their dispute amicably and entered into compromise.

Counsel assures that in future the appellant will not involve in such criminal activities. It is also submitted that having regard to all circumstances which

resulted in appellant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the appellant has faced the trial for more than 22 years and has served more

than 1 year and 3 months of the jail sentence awarded to him, therefore, counsel prayed that appellant's jail sentence be reduced suitably

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and argued that guilt of the appellant/accused has been proved beyond reasonable

doubt by overwhelming evidence, therefore, he prayed that the appeal of the accused/appellant be dismissed and judgment passed by the trial court be

confirmed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of entire record of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal in part upon finding some

force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

Though the appellant has not made any attempt to assail the findings of his conviction on merits, yet with a view to satisfy myself as to whether the

findings of the trial Court of conviction is legally sustainable or not,I perused the record and especially therein having so perused, I am satisfied that no

case is made out to interfere in the findings of the Court below. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that commission of alleged offence by the

appellant is found proved on the basis of statement of Bharatsingh (P.W.1), Meharbansingh (P.W.3), Sajjanbai (P.W.4), Sajansingh (P.W.5), Rajaram

(P.W.7), Assistant Surgeon-Dr. Srichandra Chabbra (P.W.8), Dr. Deenanath (P.W.10) which is also corroborated by the F.I.R (Ex.P/3), M.L.C

report (Ex.P/15) and X-ray report (Ex.P/16). I, therefore, upheld the findings of conviction under Section 307, 324, 506-II of IPC, 1860, recorded by

the trial Court.

Now the question arises as to whether the appellant's sentence should be reduced and if so, to what extent as urged by the learned counsel for the

appellant.

So far as the period of sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the incident is almost 22 years old and during this

time, the relationship between the parties have become cordial and as a matter of fact, they have compromised their dispute. It is also submitted that

the applicant does not have any criminal background and he has not been involved in any crime earlier, therefore, he prays to take lenient view in

regard to sentence awarded to him under Section 307 of IPC, 1860.

No doubt that the offence under Section 307 of IPC, 1860 is not compoundable in terms of Section 320(9) of Cr.P.C and therefore, the question of

compounding of the offence in the present case does not arises. However, the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant to

persuade me for a lenient view in regard to the sentence that the incident occurred on 20/07/1997 and it is almost 22 years since then, the appellant is

an agriculturist by occupation and he has no previous criminal background. There has been reconciliation between the parties, the relationship between

them have become cordial and during the pendency of the appeal, the parties have been living peacefully in the village. The appellant has already

undergone almost 1 1/4 years of his jail sentence. It is also note worthy that injured Meharbansingh sustained three incised wounds, however, no

fracture or any abnormality is deducted in the injury caused in his head. Fracture was found only on his left scapular region. According to medical

opinion in absence of treatment injuries of Meharbansingh may be dangerous to life, however, there is no definite opinion available that the said injury

is fatal to his life.

Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, I am satisfied that the ends of justice will be met if the substantial sentence awarded to the

appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him, while enhancing the amount of fine from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. Out of the fine

amount of a sum of Rs.10,000/-shall be paid to injured Meharbansingh as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. In default of payment of

enhanced fine amount, the appellant shall suffer further 6 months R.I.

Consequently, by affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Sections 324 and 506-B of IPC, 1860 whereas by

reducing the substantial sentence for offence under Section 307 of IPC to the period already undergone by the appellant, this appeal is allowed in part

to the extent mentioned herein-above.

The Registry of this Court is directed to arrange for issuance of supersession warrant against appellant-Manoharsingh. A copy of the judgment be

sent to the Courts below along with record for information and compliance.

With the aforesaid modification the Criminal Appeal No.748/2000 stands partly allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per Rules.