Ramadhar & Ors vs State Of M.P.

Criminal Appeal No.1373/2008 has been filed by appellants Ramadhar, Sumantram, Ramprasad and Samaru being aggrieved by the judgment dated

30.4.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Waidhan, District Sidhi in Sessions Trial No.176/2005, whereby all the appellants have been found

guilty of an offence punishable under section 302/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- each and in case

of default of fine, to undergo a further period of R.I for one and a half months each. They have also been convicted under section 450 of the IPC and

have been sentenced to R.I for four years with fine of Rs.1000/- each and in case of default of fine, to undergo a further period of R.I for one month

each; whereas Criminal Revision No.1213/2008 has been filed by the petitioner Bhola Prasad Vaishya against the acquittal of respondents

Bhagwandas and Anantram.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellants, alongwith three persons Anantram, Brijwasi and Bhagwandas who have been acquitted, got

together formed an unlawful assembly and thereafter assaulted the deceased Baldev with a common object of committing his murder on account of a

dispute that arose out of the election of the Palak Shikshak Sangh in the village. The prosecution case before the trial Court was that Anantram

assaulted the deceased with a Kodi, Bhagwandas with an iron rod and the remaining persons namely Brijwasi, Ramadhar, Sumantram, Ramprasad

and Samru with lathis.

The trial Court, mainly on the basis of the medical evidence on record, has held that Anantram, Bhagwandas and Brijwasi were not involved in the

incident and has, accordingly, acquitted them while the remaining four persons have been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 read

with Section 34 of the IPC, by recording a finding that there was a common intention amongst the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased.

The trial Court has also convicted the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 450 of the IPC, for having committed house trespass.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that a bare perusal of the postmortem report (Ex.P-32) alongwith the statement of

Dr. Ramhit Kumar (PW-16) makes it clear that the appellants had no intention of committing the murder of the deceased and in such circumstances

their conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, is perverse and contrary to the oral and documentary

evidence on record.

We have carefully perused the postmortem report (Ex.P32) as well as the statement of Dr. Ramhit Kumar (PW-16). On a perusal of the same, it is

apparent that six injuries were found on the body of the deceased which are as under:-

(i) Lacerated wound measuring 2x1/4x1/2 inches on the left side of the skull.

(ii) Abrasion measuring 3/4x1/4 inches near the right eye.

(iii) Abrasion measuring 1/4x1/4 inches on the right angle of the mouth (lip).

(iv) Swelling measuring 1½ x1½ inches over the left wrist.

(v) Abrasion measuring 2 x1/2 inches over the right forearm.

(vi) Bruise measuring 1½ x 3/4 inches over the right lower side of back.â€​

According to the statement of Dr. Ramhit Kumar (PW-16) there was no fracture present beneath or near any of the injuries, however on X-ray it

was discovered that three ribs beneath the injury No.6 were fractured and had pierced the liver. In the opinion of the Doctor the death of the

deceased occurred on account of the internal injuries caused to the liver. According to the postmortem report injury Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were simple in

nature whereas injury No.3 was grievous in nature and injury No.6 was sufficient for causing the death.

From a perusal of the aforesaid postmortem report and the statement of the doctor, it is apparent that the appearance of the injuries on the body of

the deceased indicated that none of them were inflicted either on the vital part of the body or were per-se or individually of such a nature as to have

been inflicted with an intention of causing the death of the deceased. The injury No.6, which is said to have ultimately resulted in the death of the

deceased, was a bruise of 1-1/2 x 3/4 size caused on the lower right back, which is a non-vital part, incidentally resulted in fracture of three ribs of the

70 years old victim which, in turn, damaged the liver resulting in his death. It is nobody’s case that the accused/appellants infact intended to

damage the liver by causing injury no.6 or that they intended to commit his murder by inflicting an injury on the lower right back. Apparently, no

incised wound caused by an iron rod or Kodi was found on any vital part of the body of the deceased.

In such circumstances, it is apparent that the appellants did not intend to either cause such an injury which, in the normal course, is sufficient to

cause the death of the deceased nor have they intended to commit his murder. However, as the appellants apparently assaulted the deceased which,

in turn, has resulted in his death which infact amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and looking to the fact that the appellants did not

have any intention of causing such an injury as would result in the death of the deceased, though they had knowledge that such an injury inflicted by

them may result in the death of the deceased, therefore, it is clearly established that the appellants have committed an offence punishable under the

Second Part of Section 304 of IPC, as all of them, with the common intention of preventing the deceased from lodging a report against them, assaulted

him. We also do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court relating to Section 34 of the IPC, in view of the consistent

and reliable statements of the witneesses.

In view of the aforesaid, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed to the limited extent that their conviction under Section 302 read with

Section 34 of IPC, is converted into an offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-II) read with Section 34 of the IPC and their sentence is also

reduced and converted to 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment. We are also of the considered opinion that the findings, recorded by the trial Court, in

respect of the offence punishable under Section 450 of the IPC, does not call for any interference as the same is based on proper and cogent

appreciation of the evidence on record, namely the statement of Reenu Kumari (PW-2), Heera Lal Vishwakarma (PW-13) and Rampati (PW14) and

is, therefore, upheld.

As far as Criminal Revision No.1213/2008, filed by the complainant side, against the acquittal of Bhagwandas and Anantram is concerned, we find

that the trial Court has recorded a finding of acquittal based on analysis of the postmortem report Ex.P-32, the statement of Dr. Ramhit Kumar (PW-

16) as well as the statement of Reenu Kumari (PW-2), Heera Lal Vishwakarma (PW-13) and Rampati (PW-14) and thereafter recording a

conclusion that these persons were not involved in the commission of the offence as the prosecution story to the effect they had assaulted the

deceased with the deadly weapons was not established in view of the medical evidence on record and the absence of any injury on the body of the

deceased caused by the weapons that they were wielding.

The trial Court, on the basis of the aforesaid analysis, has found the prosecution case, as far as these three persons are concerned, to be false and

has acquitted them. Though the learned counsel appearing for the revisioner in the criminal revision has vehemently urged that the Court below has

not analyzed or appreciated the statement of Reenu Kumari (PW2), Heera Lal Vishwakarma (PW-13) and Rampati (PW-14), who have stated that

Anantram, Brijwasi and Bhagwandas were present during the assault, however, a careful analysis of their statement makes it clear that there is no

glaring perversity in the analysis made by the trial Court warranting interference by this Court in the finding of acquittal in revisional proceedings.

Moreso, in view of the provisions of Section 401(3) of the Cr.P.C. which prohibits this Court from converting acquittal into conviction in revisional

proceedings.

We are also of the considered opinion that, as the view taken by the trial Court is a possible one and is based on the analysis of the evidence on

record, it does not call for any interference by this Court in the revision petition. The criminal revision, filed by the revisioner is, accordingly, dismissed.

Criminal Appeal No.1373/2008, filed by the appellants, against their conviction under section 302/34 of the IPC, is partly allowed and they are held

to be guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-II) read with Section 34 of the IPC and consequently their sentence is also reduced to 10

years of Rigorous Imprisonment. Their conviction under section 450 of the IPC with sentence of 4 years R.I. each, is upheld.

It is informed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the appellants have already undergone 10 years R.I. The aforesaid facts shall

be verified and in case the appellants have undergone the aforesaid sentence, they shall be released forthwith and in case some part of their sentence

remains to be undergone by them, they shall have to do so. It is also informed that the appellant No.2-Sumantram is on bail since 15.10.2015. In case

he has already undergone the modified sentence imposed by this Court under Section 304 (Part-II) read with Section 34 of the IPC, he shall be

discharged of his bail bonds and shall be set at liberty forthwith. However, in case some part of the sentence remains to be undergone, he shall be

taken into custody forthwith for that purpose.

Criminal Revision No.1213/2008, filed by the private person, against the acquittal of Anantram, and Bhagwandas, stands dismissed.