Ramchandrara S/O Amichand vs State Of M.P.

The appellant has assailed judgment and order dated 03/08/2017 passed in S.T. No.09/2017 by Sessions Judge, Mandleshwar, West Nimad, Madhya

Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court has held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years

RI and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one year RI.

The background facts sans unnecessary details are that on 13/11/2016 at about 12 in the noon, the appellant along with co-accused Amichand in

furtherance of their common intention on the dispute of a passage from their farm land assaulted Sukhdev and with intent to kill him, Amichand

inflicted iron bakhar and Ramchandra inflicted axe on his head and Ramchandra again inflicted handle of axe on his waist. They also threatened him

that if again he will demand passage from their field, they will kill him. Wife Paru Bai tried to intervene, but the accused persons chased her also with

intent to beat but she managed to escape. Nephew Poonam Chand reached there and took the complainant at his home. The complainant filed a

report with Police StationMaheshwar. Crime No.301/2016 under Section 307, 506/34 of IPC was registered at police station and after usual

investigation and recovery of axe from Ramchandrara and iron bakhar, from Amichand on the basis of their disclosure statement and bloodstain shirt

of complainant Sukhdev, the police filed charge-sheet.

The appellant and co-accused Amichand were charged under Section 307/34 & 506 Part-II of IPC. They abjured their guilt. After the trial, learned

trial Court acquitted the accused Amichand and convicted the present appellant as stated in para-1 above.

The appellant has preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the judgment and order of the learned trial Court is contrary to law and the facts

of the case. The prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The statements of the witnesses are contradictory. Learned trial Court

has committed error in not considering such contradictions and omissions appeared in the statements of the witnesses. The trial Court has committed

error in appreciating the evidence in right perspective. Essential ingredients constituting the offence charged with, are not available on the record even

then the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant. The learned trial Court did not consider that the prosecution could not establish any intention of

the crime. Findings of the learned trial Court are erroneous in the eyes of law. There is no evidence of preparation, intention or premeditation. It is

further submitted that the injury sustained by the complainant is simple in nature and not dangerous to life. The incident happened all of a sudden in a

fit of rage. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law and therefore, it is prayed that the same be set aside and the

appellant be acquitted.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. Supporting the judgment of the learned trial Court, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted

that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion after marshalling of the evidence properly produced by the prosecution, therefore, no ground for

interference in the impugned judgment is made out and he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

I have considered rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record.

During argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not disputing the incident. His polarity is only that the trial Court has not

appreciated the evidence appropriately. There is no evidence that intention of the appellant was to kill the complainant, therefore, his conviction under

Section 307 of IPC is not sustainable. He pleaded that at the most the appellant can be convicted for causing simple injury to the complainant by hard

& blunt object. He further submitted that the complainant was trying to encroach farm land of the appellant as there was no public way or passage but

the complainant was demanding such passage. He was insisting upon to go through the farm land of the appellant. Appellant has sown crop of wheat

and he was trying to go through that standing crop and was destroying his crop. On that issue a sudden altercation between both of them took place

and without any preparation or premeditation the appellant inflicted axe having in his hand as usual the villagers have to resist him from destroying his

crop, therefore, may be sentenced for the offence under Section 323 of IPC for the period already undergone.

In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the incident alleged in this case is not disputed by the appellant. The only question remains as to whether his

conviction under Section 307 of IPC is sustainable in the eyes of law and as to what should be the punishment for the offence found proved against

the appellant.

Undisputedly, the complainant Sukhdev (P.W.4) and his wife Parubai (P.W.7) were present at the time of the incident. They both have not uttered

a single word that at the time of the incident, the intention of the appellant was to kill Sukhdev. Parubai has stated that on hearing clamour, she came

out from the house and had seen both the accused persons beating her husband Sukhdev by axe and with metal pans. When she tried to rescue him,

they both chased her. Frightened by this she came back home. She has been declared hostile by the prosecution but nothing could be extracted from

her crossexamination.

Complainant Sukhdev (P.W.4) has stated that there was a dispute on the issue of passage. At the time of incident, he was standing adjacent to a

pole erected near to his house. His real brother Amichand and his son Ramchandrara (both the accused persons) reached there and on the issue of

passage, Ramchandrara inflicted axe on his head and also on his waist. They threatened him to kill. Thus nothing is there in this statement that the

complainant was having any apprehension that the intention of the appellant was to kill him. After registering of the case, police sent the injured for

medical examination. Dr. B.L. Lachheta (P.W.8) has medically examined him. In his statement before the Court, he stated that at that time of

examination he found following three injuries.

i) Lacerated wound is 6 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm on overhead. ii) Lacerated wound is 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on left side of head. iii) Contusion is 6 cm x 6

cm on left thigh hip.

According to Dr. Lachheta (P.W.8), all the injuries werecaused by hard and blunt object. He referred the injured for Xray of head and left hip.

According to X-ray report (Ex.D/1), no bony injury was found to the complainant. Though the doctor has stated that in reply to the query raised by the

police, he has stated that injury No.2 sustained on head was dangerous to life but how it is not explained by him. Looking to the nature of the injury

and the object by which it was caused, such opinion of doctor is not acceptable at all.

Thus, in nutshell, the case of the prosecution falls only under Section 323 of IPC as the injuries to the complainant Sukhdev were caused by hard

and blunt object and all those injuries were simple in nature. In that situation, it is vividly clear that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the

evidence of the prosecution in right perspective and has mistakenly convicted the appellant under Section 307 of IPC.

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment passed and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court are set aside and modified. The

conviction of the appellant Ramchandrara is converted to one under Section 323 IPC instead of Section 307 of IPC and his sentence is reduced to the

period already undergone and the fine is reduced to Rs.1000/-. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in

connection with any other case.

Order of the trial Court regarding disposal of property stands confirmed.

The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.