Parmanandi Patel And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The applicants have filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31/08/2019 passed by the appellate Court i.e. 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No.109/2016 whereby learned appellate Court while acquitting the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC, partly dismissed the appeal by affirming the conviction and sentence passed vide judgment dated 30/07/2016 by the Court of JMFC in RTC No.845/2014 thereby convicting each applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with Section 34, IPC (two counts), under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC (two counts) and sentencing them to undergo RI for six months along with fine of Rs.300/-with default stipulation and RI for three months along with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation.

The case of prosecution against the applicant, in short, is that on the relevant point of time, when injured-Chandrabhan was taking lunch in his home, cattle of the applicant started grazing grass. When he called all the applicants for removing the cattle, the applicants got enraged and applicant-Parmanandi armed with axe and other applicants armed with wooden stick came inside the house of Chandrabhan and started beating him. Gajadhar, Khemchand, Kamal came to save Chandrabhan, then applicants also started beating all of them. All received injuries. Applicant-Parmanandi assaulted by axe on the head of Khemchand. Other persons came on the spot and drived away both the parties. Injured lodged a report to that effect in Police Station, Orchha Road, Chhataarpur. Crime No.39/201439/2014 registered against the applicants. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. Learned Court of JMFC framed charges against the applicants. Each applicant abjured guilt. After recording the evidence of both the parties, examined each applicant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The applicants denied all the incriminating evidence and circumstances came against them.

Learned Court of JMFC, after hearing both the parties, delivered judgment dated 30/07/2016 thereby acquitted each applicant for the offence punishable under Section 294, 506 of IPC and convicted each applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 324 read with Section 34 (two counts), under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC (two counts) and sentenced as mentioned above. Against that conviction and sentence, each applicant preferred criminal appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.109/2016. Learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur vide judgment dated 31/08/2019 acquitted each applicant for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC, however, affirmed the conviction and sentence passed under Sections 324 read with Section 34 (two counts), 323 read with Section 34 of IPC (two counts).

The applicants, being aggrieved by that affirmation of sentence and conviction preferred this criminal revision on the ground that learned both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. There is much contradiction and omissions and lacuna in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Learned both Courts below have not appreciated the fact that all witnesses are interested witnesses. There was no eye witness in the matter. Prosecution failed to prove the offences against the applicant beyond doubt. Both the Courts below have not extended the benefit of doubt to the applicants, therefore, prays that by allowing this criminal revision, set aside the impugned conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below and acquit them of the charges.

Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate by supporting the impugned judgment passed by both the Courts below, submits that both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence properly, thus, there is no need to interfere in the conviction and sentence, hence, prays for dismissal of the criminal revision.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the statement recorded during trial.

Chandrabhan Patel (PW-1), in his statement, clearly stated the name and act of the applicants. This witness categorically stated that applicant-Parmanandi assaulted on Khemchand by means of axe. This witness stated that applicant-Vittey Patel assaulted on his head by means of wooden stick. In the same way another injured Khemchand Patel (PW-2) also stated that applicant-Parmanandi assaulted on his head by means of axe. Indrapal Patel (PW-3) is an eye witness and also supported the statement of both injured. Kamal Patel (PW-4) who is injured clearly stated that applicant-Parmanandi assaulted on Khemchand Patel by means of axe and Khemchand Patel received injuries on his head. Gajadhar (PW-6) who is also injured clearly stated that applicants beat this witness as well as Chandrabhan, Khemchand and Kamal.

There is sufficient evidence available against each applicant that they, with a common intention, committed Marpeet and in that Marpeet Khemchand received injuries on head. Chandrabhan, Kamal and Gajadhar also sustained injuries. Doctor opined that all the injuries are simple in nature. Dr.Sunil Chourasiya (PW-10) found incised wound on the head of Chandrabhan, however, Chandrabhan and other witnesses did not state any where that which applicant assaulted with a sharp weapon on the head of Chandrabhan. All witnesses stated that applicant-Vittey inflicted injury on the head of Chandrabhan by means of wooden stick. Khemchand received two incised wounds on his head. These all evidence go to show that applicant-Parmanandi used the axe and assaulted on the head of Khemchand by means of axe and Khemchand received two incised wounds on his head. However, Chandrabhan received injury by means of blunt and hard object not by sharp edged object. In this way only applicant-Parmanandi used sharp weapon, thus, applicant-Parmanandi can be convicted under Section 324 and other applicants with the aid of Section 34 of IPC, thus, each applicant can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC for only one count and each applicant can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC for three counts. Hence, this Court does not find any error in convicting the applicants.

So far as sentence is concerned, no doubt all are villagers and residing in the same vicinity and injured received simple injury. When Marpeet happened, such type of injury is expected to be received. The applicants are not having any criminal past. Considering all these facts, this Court is inclined to interfere in the sentence. Except applicant-Parmanandi, all other applicants spent more than one and half months in the custody. Applicant-Parmanandi is still in custody. It is held that if all the applicants will be convicted for the period already undergone, it would serve the purpose of substantial justice.

Accordingly, this criminal revision is partly allowed on the point of sentence. The conviction of applicants is hereby affirmed. The sentence of imprisonment passed for all the offences is hereby modified to the extent that all the applicants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them, however, fine amount for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC is enhanced to Rs.500/- for each count and the fine amount for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC is enhanced to Rs.500/- for each count for each applicant. After depositing fine amount, applicant-Parmanandi be released forthwith from the custody and set him at liberty, if not required in any other case and the bail bonds of other applicants stands cancelled. No cost.