Rajju @ Rajkumar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment dated 14/11/2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raisen in ST No.63/2017, whereby the present appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-with default clause.

In  brief  the  facts  of  the  case  are  that  on 22. 12.2016 when complainant Anita Bai had gone to fetch water to a Government tap, a quarrel took place between appellant Rajju @ Rajkumar and complainant Anita Bai and when she asked not to abuse her, at that time the appellant/accused assaulted her with a lathi (stick) on her head and waist. After hearing her cries, Shaitan Singh, Rahul, Rajkumar and Sundra Bai came to the spot and intervened in the matter. Thereafter injured Anita Bai was taken to the Government Hospital, Sultanpur District Raisen and the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) was recorded and on the basis of which the FIR was also registered. The accused/ appellant was arrested and the lathi (stick) was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-5. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the learned Judge of the trial Court after recording the evidence, convicted the appellant as aforesaid and being aggrieved of the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the appellant. It is further submitted that no grievous injury was found on the body of the complainant, hence in the facts and circumstances of the case the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 14.11.2017 i.e. from the date of conviction and no purpose would be served to keep him in the jail, as he has already suffered sufficiently for one year four months, more than commensurate to the injuries suffered by the complainant.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the learned Judge of the trial Court, and hence his appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that so far as the deposition of injured Anita Bai (PW-1) is concerned, she was examined by Dr.Vivek Vyas (PW-4), who found the following injuries on the person of the injured:-

"चोट क्रमांक-1 आहत के सिर पर बांये पैराइटल भाग पर एक आड़ा फटा हुआ घाव मौजूद था, जो दांये पैराइटल भाग तक जा रहा था, जिसका आकार 8 से0मी0 गुणा 1 से0मी0 गुणा हड्डी की गहराई तक था, जिसमें से लगातार रक्त स़्त्राव हो रहा था । चोट क्रमांक-2 आहत  के  सिर  पर  एक  और  फटा हुआ घाव मौजूद  था, जो पहले घाव के दांये सिर से ष्षुरू होकर  ऑक्सीपिटल भाग के बांयेतरफ  खत्म  हो  रहा  था, जिसका  आकार  12  से0मी0  गुणा 1 से0मी0 गुणा हड्डी की गहराई तक था, जिसमें से लगातार रक्त स्त्राव हो रहा था ।''

As per the opinion of this doctor, the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object within six hours time and the complainant was also referred to X-ray. He has also admitted that at the time when the complainant was brought to the hospital, she was unconscious.

A close scrutiny of the record reveals that there is no evidence on record regarding the complainant's X-ray report and in fact other doctor, who was to be examined in support of the complainant's X-ray has been given up by the prosecution. In view of the same, it is clear that there was no bony injury suffered by the complainant but complainant Anita Bai (PW-1) has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that when she went to fetch the water, she had an altercation with the present appellant, who caused injuries on her head with a stick (lathi). She has further stated that she was admitted in the District Raisen Hospital for around eight days and also underwent treatment on her own expenses. She has further stated that she was administered three bottles of blood.

The statement of the complainant has also been corroborated by Sundra Bai (PW-2), who was also present on the spot when the incident took place and has clearly stated that the appellant caused 2-3 injuries on the head of the complainant Anita Bai. Similar statement has also been given by Rajkumar (PW-3). The recovery of the lathi (stick) has been made from the appellant vide his memos Ex.P-4 and P-5 which have been proved by Prakash Yadav (PW-5) and Ramesh Kumar (PW-6), who are the witnesses to the said seizure memos and have also supported the case of the prosecution.

In the accused statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated in the matter on account of previous enmity.

From the aforesaid evidence this Court finds that no irregularity or jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Judge of the trial Court in convicting the appellant under Section 307 of IPC, hence the conviction of the appellant is hereby confirmed.

So far as question of quantum of sentence is concerned, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him, as there was no bony injury to the injured, who was discharged from the hospital after eight days, the jail sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him by increasing the fine amount.

In the result, the criminal appeal stands partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is hereby maintained but this sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him by increasing the fine from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/- i.e. an additional sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only), which shall be deposited by the appellant before the trial Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this judgment, failing which he shall undergo the remaining part of his jail sentence. If the aforesaid sum is deposited by the appellant, then the same may be disbursed by the trial Court to the injured Anita Bai. Subject to the aforesaid compliance of the order, the appellant who is in jail, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, otherwise, he shall suffer the sentence as awarded by the learned judge of the trial court. Accordingly appeal stands partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.

A certified copy of this judgment be sent to the learned court below for information and compliance.