Munna @ Gori Shanker vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgement dated 03.07.1999 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 218/1998 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and default stipulations.

Appellant has challenged the findings of the trial Court on the ground that the trial Court has wrongly convicted him on the basis of evidence which are neither cogent nor trustworthy.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

As per the prosecution case, the appellant and complainant Umesh Vishwakarma (PW-1) are close relatives. Appellant is the cousin brother of Ramesh who is the father of complainant-Umesh. They resided in the same locality.

Complainant-Umesh (PW-1) deposed that on 01.01.1998 i.e. the date of incident, the appellant had a quarrel with him due to some dispute regarding woods. Complainant claimed that the appellant had used their wood. This was the reason for the dispute as admitted by the witnesses namely Naresh (PW-2), Mukesh (PW-5), Ramesh Vishwakarma (PW-6) and Krishna (PW-7). This fact has also been admitted by Lalit Vishwakarma who is a defence witness. Hence, the appellant had motive to commit offence.

Further, complainant-Umesh Vishwakarma (PW-1) deposed that on the date of incident, at about 8:00 am, appellant entered into his house and poured acid on him. Due to this, the complainant sustained injuries on left side of his face, neck, chest and both the hands. Thereafter, he ran outside and used water to get relief from the injury. His neighbours witnessed the incident and thereafter he lodged the FIR Ex. P/1 against the appellant.

The testimony of the complainant is duly corroborated by Naresh (PW-2), Ramesh Kumar Sen (PW-3), Mukesh (PW-5), Ramesh Vishwakarma (PW-6) and partly corroborated by Krishna (PW-7).

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the witnesses belong to the same family, hence they are interested witnesses. Their testimony is unreliable hence, not sufficient to convict the appellant.

On the other hand, the appellant himself is the relative of the complainant, therefore, the witnesses are also the relatives of the appellant.

Moreover, the testimony of the witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Om Prakash Verma (PW-8) who examined the complainant-Umesh on the same day and found superficial burn on his face, neck, chest and both arms. According to Dr. Verma (PW-8), the injuries were caused by acid. The complainant was admitted in the burn ward. His testimony is unchallenged. Dr. M.K.Jain (PW-10), Assistant Surgeon also examined the complainant on the same date. He found acid injuries on left pinna and referred him for further treatment.

Dr. R.S.Chakravarty (PW-11) ASI treated the complainant from 01.01.1998 and 15.01.1998 at Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur in burn unit. He explained that Umesh received 9% injury on the head and neck, 5% injury on the left arm and 7% injury on the upper part of the right arm. He exhibited bed-head ticket Ex. P/8(1) to Ex. P/8(5). According to the bed-head ticket, complainant Umesh was discharged from the hospital on 15.01.1998. He was under treatment for 15 days. He further explained that after receiving query from the police, he opined that if Umesh had not received medical aid at the right time, he would have died due to the injuries.

It is important to mention here that the opinion given by the doctors have not been challenged by the defence in their cross-examination. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to disbelieve the medical evidence which has duly corroborated the ocular version.

Accordingly, it is established that the appellant, with the intention and in a pre-planned manner poured acid on the complainant and caused injuries to him. Although, he was under treatment for about 15 days, but for conviction under Section 307 of the IPC, intention of the accused is the main considerable fact and not the nature of injury. Otherwise also, the doctor gave opinion that if the victim/complainant was not provided treatment within time, he would have succumbed to his injuries.

In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded proper sentence to him.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court and the sentence so awarded, are hereby affirmed.

The appellant is on bail. His bail bond is hereby cancelled. He shall surrender before the trial Court within 15 days of this order to serve the remaining part of the jail sentence, failing which the trial Court shall take appropriate steps to take him into custody for serving the remaining part of the sentence.

At the end, it is the duty of this Court to record words of appreciation in favour of Shri Ajay Kumar Mehta, Advocate who assisted this Court in disposal of this appeal which was pending since 1999. His assistance is acknowledged.

Copy of this judgment along with the record be sent to the Court below for information and necessary compliance.