Ratan vs State of Madhya Pradesh

S.R. Waghmare, J.—This appeal has been filed u/s 374 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.01.1997 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar in S.T. No. 365/1996, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence punishable u/S. 325 r/w. 34 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- in default he was to undergo three month rigorous imprisonment. Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that on 28th July 1996 deceased Rameshwar had raped Mamubai (16) daughter of the one accused Narsingh. The present appellant Ratan is the uncle of that girl. On 29th July 1996 the accused reached village Chikliya in the field of Rameshwar where he was digging the soil and his servant Pannalal was arranging the wood. The present appellant assaulted Rameshwar due to which he fell down and the accused ran away. Injured Rameshwar told his servant Paanlal (P.W. 1) to inform his family members about this incident. Pannalal informed Rameshwar''s daughter Shobhabai (P.W. 6) and she informed her uncle (Kaka) thereafter, they went to the spot. Near the incident place one Nandu (P.W. 2) was working on his field and he had seen that the accused was beating Rameshwer by lathi. The injured Ramashwer was admitted at Patidar Narsing Home, Dhar by his family members, where he died on 02.08.1996. Police Official, Dhar registered the merg and sent the body for postmortem. And the report was lodged against the appellant and lathi was recovered from his possession. He was arrested, duly, charged and committed to trial. Hence the present appeal.

The accused appellant abjured his guilt and stated that he was falsely implicated in the matter. The Trial Court on considering the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as hereinabove indicated and hence the present appeal.

Counsel for the appellant has vehemently stressed the fact that according to postmortem report (Ex. P/16) there is no fixed medical opinion regarding the cause of death, moreover there is no mens rea to cause death of deceased Rameshwar. Counsel 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 under Sections 325/34 of the IPC. Counsel vehemently urged the fact that Dr. Prabhakar Jadhav (P.W. 10) has only stated that grievous injury received by the deceased i.e. on the left leg and the rest of injuries are simple in nature and were sustained on the non vital part of the body. Counsel also stated that the appellant has almost undergone custodial sentence of approximately 20 days. Counsel prayed that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the conviction for offence u/s 325/34 of the IPC 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.

Counsel for the respondent/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 and no infirmity can be found with the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction for the accused for offence u/s 325/34 of the IPC. However, considering the fact that the appellant was 30 year at the time of the incident and the fact that he was undergone some of the custodial sentence, the alternate prayer of the Counsel for the appellant 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 raised by Rs. 5,000/-; which shall be deposited by the accused appellant in the Trial Court and paid to the legal heir of deceased Rameshwar 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 appellant 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. appellant are on bail. His bail bond and surety bond are hereby discharged. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned lower Court for compliance.

Cc. as per rules.