Ramaiya and Another vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Pritinker Diwaker

The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.5.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Janjgir District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 210/1991 convicting the accused/appellant No. 1 Ramaiya under Sections 304 (Part-II) and 323/34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.500 u/s 304 (Part-II) and rigorous imprisonment for four months with fine of Rs.300 u/s 323 IPC whereas accused/appellant No. 2 Naresh has been convicted u/s 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and pay fine of Rs.300, plus default stipulations. Facts of the case in brief are that on 10.7.1988 at about 10 a.m. FIR Ex. P-11 was lodged by Budhram (PW-7) alleging that on that day at about 6.30 a.m. when he had gone to his field and thrown away the thorns lying there, on which accused/appellant slapped him saying as to why he had thrown the thorns in his field. Thereafter, he got back home and narrated the incident to his brother Pardeshi and father Pitamber. When he was going to police station to lodge the report along with his brother, father and sister-in-law, on the way the appellants along with Arjun and Ajit stopped and assaulted them with spade and rapli saying "finish them" as a result of which he sustained injuries on his chest and back whereas Pardeshi suffered injuries on left arm and Juganbai on head which resulted in bleeding. It is alleged that the incident was witnessed by Gambhir, Ratan and several other people and they had intervened in the matter. Based on this report, offences under Sections 341, 323 and 506B read with section 34 were registered against the present appellants in addition to Ajit and Arjun. As Jugan Bai died on 14.7.1988, offence u/s 302 IPC was also registered against them. As during investigation accused Arjun also expired, the challan was filed against the three accused persons i.e. the appellants herein and one Ajit under Sections 341, 323, 34, 506-B, 326 and 302 IPC. Court below however framed the charge under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC and the accused/persons.

So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.

After hearing the parties, the trial Court acquitted accused Ajit of all the charges levelled against them. The Court also acquitted the accused/appellants herein of the charges u/s 302 IPC but convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

Counsel for the appellants submits that the deposition of Pitamber (PW-3), Pardeshi (PW-6), Budhram (PW-7) and Ramchand (PW-11) being self-contradictory is not worthy of credence. He submits that as per the statements of Pardeshi (PW-6) and Ramchand (PW-11) it is accused Ramaia who caused injury to Jugan Bai but as per the statement of Budhram (PW- 7) and Pitamber (PW-3) the injury was not caused by accused Ramaiya. He submits that seizure witness Gambhir (PW-1) has not supported the case of the prosecution and thus looking to the evidence collected by the prosecution, the accused/appellants are entitled for acquittal. Lastly, he submits that the incident had taken place 24 years back and that the appellants have already remained in jail for about seven months and therefore their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

Counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that Pitamber (PW-3), Pardeshi (PW-6), Budhram (PW-7) and Ramchand (PW-11) have duly supported the case of the prosecution and minor contradictions if any in their statements, are to be ignored. He submits that the Court below has already taken a lenient view by convicting the accused/appellants u/s 304 (Part-II) instead of Section 302 IPC and therefore, no interference with the findings recorded by the Court below is called for.

Gambhir (PW-1), Ratanlal (PW-2) and Ram Vilas (PW-12) have not supported the case of the prosecution. Pitamber (PW- 3) - father-in-law of deceased Jugan Bai has stated that on the date of incident the present appellants along with two other accused persons namely Arjun and Ajit had assaulted deceased Jugan Bai. Accused/appellant Naresh assaulted her with pick-axe whereas accused/appellant Ramaiya with spade and other accused Ajit with Rapli. According to him, accused Arjun has expired during investigation itself. Thereafter, this witness has stated that he had not seen the accused persons assaulting anyone. Dr. Surendra Nath Dubey (PW-4) is the witness who conducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased and gave his report Ex. P-7 stating that following injuries were present on her body:

Stitched wound of 4" size transversely placed over scalp in frontal area. Death has been caused due to damage to brain tissue due to head injury.

ASI - K.P. Jaiswal (PW-5) is the witness who conducted inquest and prepared Panchnama of the body of the deceased vide Ex. P-10. Pardeshi (PW-6) -husband of the deceased has stated that on the date of incident at about 6 a.m. his brother Budhram (PW-7) came to him and informed that on account of his putting a thorny fencing on the field the accused/appellants herein had picked up a quarrel and subjected him to beating also. Thereafter, when he along with his father, wife and one Budhram were going to the police station to lodge the report, accused/appellants herein, one Arjun and Ajit met them on the way and accused/appellant Ramaiya assaulted Jugan Bai on her head with spade as a result of which she fell down and when he was trying to lift her, accused Naresh assaulted him on shoulder with pick-axe and when his father and brother ran to save them, they were also assaulted by the present appellants and accused Arjun (since dead). Thereafter, appellant Ramaiya threw the spade and started assaulting his brother and father with fist. In cross examination this witness has not stated anything new and remained firm to what he has stated in the examination-in-chief. Budhram (PW- 7) has stated as to the manner in which he and his family members were assaulted by the accused persons. According to him, accused/appellants herein first assaulted with handle of spade as a result of which he received injuries on shoulder. Thereafter, other injured persons were also assaulted by the accused persons. After returning to his house, he narrated the entire incident to his father and that when they were going to lodge the report, near Mata Chaura all the accused persons came there and assaulted them. He has stated that accused Arjun and Naresh assaulted his brother on head. On account of head injury caused by them to his sister-in-law Jugan Bai, she fell down. According to him, incident was witnessed by Ratan and Ramchand also. In cross examination this witness has not stated anything new and remained firm to what he has stated in the examination-in-chief. P. Mahajan (PW-8) is the witness who medically examined deceased Jugan Bai, Pardeshi, Budhram and Pitamber and noticed following injuries on their body:

Injuries suffered by Jugan Bai:

Lacerated wound on the vertex part in the size of 10 x 3 x 1 c.m extending from left to right parietal. Vertex bone was fractured. This injury was caused by hard and blunt object and the patient was referred for x-ray and treatment to Bilaspur.

Injuries suffered by Arjun:

Lacerated wound on shoulder in the size of 3 x 1 + c.m. This injury was simple in nature.

Injuries suffered by Pitamber:

Injury on left hand in the size of 10 x 6 c.m. haematoma and swelling was present.

Mellechram (PW-9) is the Patwari who prepared spot map Ex. P- 20. Ramanuj (PW-10) is the witness who conducted inquest of the body of the deceased vide Ex. P-22. Ramchand (PW-11) is the independent witness who has stated that he saw both the parties fighting with each other and that accused Ramaiya was assaulting the deceased with spade. In paragraph 3 of his cross examination he has stated that he saw both the parties fighting with each other but he had not seen as to who assaulted whom. Again in paragraph 4 he has stated that he saw accused/appellants assaulting the deceased. Anil Tiwari (PW-13) is the investigating officer who has supported the case of the prosecution.

On taking an overall view of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and the material available on record particularly the evidence of Pardeshi (PW-6) -husband of the deceased Pardeshi (PW-6) -husband of the deceased and Ramchand (PW-11) it becomes apparent that it is the accused/appellant Ramaiya who caused injuries to Jugan Bai which ultimately led to her death. Though there are certain contradictions in the statement of Ramchand (PW-11) yet reiterating the things stated by him he has again stated that it is accused/appellant Ramaiya who caused injuries to Jugan Bai. Moreover, incident is also supported though in part by Pitamber (PW-3) - father-in-law of deceased Jugan Bai and Budhram (PW-7). May be, these two witnesses have not specifically stated that it is accused Ramaiya who caused injuries to Jugan Bai and that even if their statements are ignored, evidence of PW-6 and PW-11 is good enough to uphold the conviction of the accused/appellants. Submission of the counsel for the appellants regarding reduction of jail sentence of appellant No. 1 to the period of seven months which he has already spent in jail, cannot be accepted because the Court below has already been lenient while imposing the jail sentence of five years u/s 304 (Part-II) IPC. Accordingly, the judgment impugned does not appear to suffer from any infirmity or irregularity calling interference by this Court. Appeal thus being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such. It is informed that accused/appellant Naresh has already remained in jail for a period of about 5 months and thereby completed the sentence imposed on him. In this view of the matter, no order regarding his being sent to jail is necessary. However, appellant Ramaiya who is already on bail be arrested forthwith and sent to jail to serve out the remaining part of the sentence imposed on him.