Raju Singh Alias Durga And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J

This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 08.07.2002 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Atrocities Act), Shahdol in S.T. No.37/2000 by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the following offence:

Conviction

Sentence

324 of IPC

Rigorous Imprisonment for one year to each of the appellants

The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that on 22.09.2000, the complainant had gone along with Jhulia Bai and his cattles for ploughing the agricultural land bearing Khasra No.391/6 (New number 525) total area 5 acres.

It is alleged that accused persons came there along with lathi and tangi and started assaulting him. He was thrown on the ground. The cattles of the complaint were locked in the house and his plough was taken away. When Jhulia Bai raised an alarm, her mouth was gagged with a cloth and she was assaulted from behind. Somehow, she managed to escape and came to the village. The villagers came on the spot, then the accused persons while going away from the spot extended a threat that in case if they come to the land, then they will be killed. The incident was narrated by the complainant to Sarpanch and other villagers. The report was made to Police Station, Jaisinghnagar by Jhulia Bai but when no action was taken by Police, then the complainant made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Shahdol.

Accordingly, the S.H.O., A.J.K., Shahdol was directed to lodge the FIR. FIR No.41/2000 was recorded. The injured was sent for medical examination. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The spot map was prepared. The accused Raju was arrested and one Tangi was seized by seizure memo. The caste certificate of the complainant was collected. The Police after completing investigation filed the charge-sheet for offence under Section 341, 323, 324, 325, 506-B and 34 of IPC and under Section 3 (1) (10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The trial Court by order dated 19.03.2000 framed charges under Section 324/34, 506-B, 392 of IPC and under Section 3 (1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution in order to prove his case examined Ramgareeb (PW/1), Pyarelal (PW/2), Jhulia Bai (PW/3), Andaji (PW/4), Dr. R.K. Singh (PW/5), Rama Singh (PW/6), Gujratiya Bai (PW/7) and Arvind Kumar Kuzur (PW/8). The appellants examined Motideen (DW/1) in their defense.

The trial Court by the impugned judgment and sentence acquitted the appellants for offence under Section 506-B, 392 of IPC and under Section 3 (1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted them under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

It is submitted by counsel for the State that no appeal against the acquittal of appellants for offence under 506-B, 392 of IPC and under Section 3 (1)(10) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed.

Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Court below, it is submitted by counsel for appellants that since the incident took place in the year 2000 and 23 long years have passed, therefore the appellants would not like to challenge the conviction but they may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The appellant No.1 had remained in jail for 8 days.

Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for State.

Heard the learned counsel for parties.

The Supreme Court in the case of Nagpal Traders v. Davinder Singh, reported in (2017) 11 SCC 431 has held that the quantum of sentence cannot be interfered with unless and until the facts of the case are considered. Accordingly, merits are being considered.

The injured Pyarelal (PW/2) has stated that while they were making preparation for ploughing the field, the appellant and his wife came there along with lathi and tangi and started abusing him. Initially, appellants assaulted Jhulia Bai. Thereafter, appellant No.1 Raju gave a lathi blow to him as a result he fail down. The appellant No.2 gave a tangi blow on his right leg. The appellant No.2 was also alleging that the complainant parties is ploughing their field, therefore, they should be beaten. It was alleged that on account of assault, he had sustained multiple injuries on various parts of his body. Thereafter, Andaji took him to the Sarpanch. The entire incident was narrated by this witness to Sarpanch. Written complaint was made. AJK Police Station sent him to the Government Hospital where he was medically examined and in cross examined this witness has stated that Jhulia Bai is resident of same village. She is not his relative, however he admitted that today also he had come to the Court along with Jhulia Bai. He further admitted that there is a land dispute between Jhulia Bai and appellants. He further admitted that appellant No.2 had lodged a report against the complainant, Jhulia Bai and Andaji. He further alleged that the FIR in question was lodged by way of counter blast. He dined that Jhulia Bai is his sister by relation. Certain minor omissions and contradiction were also pointed out. Jhulia Bai (PW/3) has also stated that she had gone along with Pyarelal and Andaji for ploughing her field when Pyarelal and Andaji was ploughing the field, then the appellants came there along with Lathi and Tangi. Initially, appellant No.1 gave a lathi blow on her left leg and alleged that why they are ploughing the field. Thereafter, the appellants had assaulted Pyarelal and Andaji also. The incident was narrated to Sarpanch. In cross examination, she admitted that a dispute is going on with the appellants on the question of land. She denied that she has encroached upon the land belonging to the appellants. She admitted that the appellant No.2 had also lodged a report against this witness, Pyarelal (PW/2) and Andaji (PW/4). Andaji (PW/4) has also narrated the same incident.

Dr. R.K. Singh (PW/5) has medically examined the injured Pyarelal on 22.09.2000 and found following injuries:-

(i) Deep contusion of 2x3 cm on right side of scalp, right towards lid just anterior to Pinna. No colour change was seen.

(ii) Swelling and tenderness present on the posterior aspect of right palm admeasuring 3x2 cm. in middle no colour change.

(iii) Slide swelling and tenderness present in right side of posterior aspect of right knee joint.

(iv) Incised wound of 2x0.3 cm. vertically place in right leg bone on interior aspect bleeding was present swelling in area of 3.5x3 cm present along with tenderness no colour change.

(v) Swelling and tenderness present in the right foot.

(vi) Tenderness and swelling present over upper right foot.

It was further stated that in X-ray report, fracture of metatarsal bone of little finger of foot was found whereas no other bone injury was found. The X-ray report is Ex.P/ and X-ray plates are Ex.P/5, P/6 and P/7. In the cross examination, he stated that X-ray was not done in his presence. He further stated that he is an optician. He further stated that in case if somebody falls down from the tree, then he may sustain some injuries.

Thus, it is clear that the prosecution case is based on the evidence of Pyarelal (PW/2) who is also an injured witness, Jhulia Bai (PW/3) and Andaji (PW/4). Although, these witnesses have admitted that one FIR was also lodged against them but the appellants have not pointed out the outcome of the said FIR. The appellants had also examined Motideen (DW/1) who had stated that about one and half to two years back, Pyarelal had fallen down from the tree. As a result, he sustained injury on his leg but in cross examination, he admitted that he had heard that Pyarelal had fallen down from the tree. Thus, it is clear that Motideen (DW/1) was not an eye witness of alleged fall of Pyarelal from tree, therefore, this witness cannot be relied in support of defense of the appellant.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has successfully established that the appellants had beaten Pyarelal (PW/2) thereby causing him multiple injuries. The trial Court has convicted the appellants for offence under Section 324/34 of IPC and has sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The conviction under Section 324/34 is hereby affirmed.

So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the incident took place about 23 years back. The appellant No.2 is a lady. No minimum sentence is provided for offence under Section 324 of IPC. There appears to be some land dispute between the parties.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants back to jail. Accordingly, by enhancing the fine amount, the appellants can be sentenced to the jail sentence for the period already undergone by them. The appellant No.1 had remained in jail for a period of 8 days. Accordingly, the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellants is hereby modified and their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them on payment of fine of Rs.15,000/-each. The fine amount be deposited latest by 29.02.2024, failing which the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court shall automatically get revived.

With aforesaid modification, the judgment and sentence dated 08.07.2002 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Atrocities Act), Shahdol in S.T. No.37/2000 is hereby affirmed.

The bail bonds and surety bonds are hereby cancelled.

Let a copy of this judgment along with record be immediately sent back to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

The appeal succeeds and is allowed to the extent mentioned above.