Raju vs State of M.P.

S.R. Waghmare, J.—This is the appeal of the year 1999 has been filed u/s 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 5.8.99 passed by Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T. No.344/97 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable u/S. 307/34 of the IPC and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment each with fine of Rs.200/-each; in case of default of payment of fine they were to undergo additional 10 days imprisonment each. Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that on 8.3.97 at about 9.30 PM appellants assaulted the complainant with fists and kicks, nails. It was also alleged that accused Deepak assaulted the injured Rajesh by using the knife, with the result Rajesh sustained injuries on his umbilicus. Upon the complaint of the complainant case was registered against the appellant. After arrest framing of charges and recording of evidence, appellants were convicted as stated above, hence the present appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that the conviction is contrary to the principles of law. The Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. However, the prosecution has been unable to prove the offence u/s 307/34 of the IPC. Counsel also submits that the two injuries in the stomach which was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course according to the doctor. Moreover even if the prosecution allegations are considered Raju is alleged to have kicked the complainant whereas Guddu appellant No.3 only caught hold the injured. It was accused Deepak who is alleged to have plunged the knife into the stomach of the complainant and there was a petty dispute due to intoxication by all the 3 appellants in the middle of the road. There is no intention to cause murder and hence the offence would not fall u/s 307 of the IPC and he urged that it may be converted to one u/s 326 of the IPC. Counsel relied on Muthu Naicker and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, to bolster his submission.

Counsel prayed that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment of conviction deserves to be set-aside. In alternate Counsel has prayed that if the Court is satisfied regarding the conviction the custodial sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

Learned Counsel for the State has per contra stated that the judgment of the Trial Court is in accordance with law and does not require any interference and the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.

On considering the above submissions, I find that the impugned judgment is based on valid and cogent reasons and proper marshalling of evidence. However, the learned Judge of the Trial Court has erred in convicting the accused for offence u/s 307 of the IPC and hence the conviction of the accused for offence u/s 307 of the IPC is hereby set aside, instead, he is convicted for offence u/s 326 of the IPC. However, considering the fact that the appellants were 22 to 28 years of age at the time of the incident and the fact that they have undergone some of the custodial sentence, the alternate prayer of the Counsel for the appellants being limited and reasonable is allowed in the interest of justice. The custodial sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount is further raised to Rs.2,000/-; which shall be deposited by the accused appellants No.1 Raju & 3 Guddu and Rs.5000/-shall be deposited by appellant No.2 Deepak in the trial Court and paid to the injured as compensation u/s 357 of the Cr.P.C. within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. On failure to pay the fine within the stipulated period and the appellants shall undergo the remaining sentence as directed by the lower Court.

With the aforesaid modification the appeal is partly allowed to the extent herein above indicated. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are hereby discharged. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.

CC as per rules.