Santoshdas and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Vide judgment dated 30.1.1997 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in ST No. 12/1992 the appellant No. 1 was convicted for the offence u/s 324 of IPC and sentenced with two years'' RI with fine of Rs. 500/-, whereas the appellants No. 2 and 3 were convicted for the offence u/s 325 of IPC and sentenced with three years'' RI with fine of Rs. 500/- each. Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satna the appellants have preferred the present appeal. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 14/6/1991 at about 8:30 PM in the evening, the victim Balmukund and other witnesses Vishnu, Jagdish Prasad and Ramprakash were going from Satna to Sohawal. In front of a block, a tanker of the complainant was parked and it could not be filled up because some children put stones in the pipeline. When the enquiry took place, accused Gyandas went to the spot and provoked the others to assault the victim and other witnesses. The accused persons assaulted the victim and others by sticks and axes. In that quarrel, the victim Balmukund sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Vishnu sustained some injuries of axes. Lalji Agrawal (PW-3) father of the victims Balmukund and Vishnu had lodged a report Ex. P-2 before the SHO Kotwali, Satna. The victims were sent to the hospital. Dr. M.C. Gupta (PW-8) examined the witnesses at District Hospital, Satna. He gave a report Ex. P-6 for the victim Balmukund and Ex. P-7 for the victim Vishnu. He found three injuries to victim Balmukund caused at left temporal region, left index finger and on the forehead, whereas one incised wound was found to the victim Vishnu on left temporal region and back. The victims were referred for the X-ray examination and it was found by Dr. D.K. Tiwari (PW-9) that the victim Balmukund sustained a fracture of right fronto parietal region. He gave his reports Ex. P-8 and P-9. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Satna.

The appellants-accused abjured their guilt. They have stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter. The victims fell from a scooter and sustained injuries. In defence Brajesh Pratap (DW-1) and Shyamlal Verma (DW-2) were examined.

The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Satna after considering the evidence adduced by the parties acquitted the applicants from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 148 and 307 of IPC, but appellant Santoshdas was convicted for the offence u/s 324 of IPC and remaining appellants were convicted for the offence u/s 325 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants remained in the custody from two days to four weeks. They have faced the trial and appeal since the year 1992, and therefore after considering their harassment, they may not be sent to the jail again.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the judgment passed by the trial Court appears to be correct and there is no basis by which any interference in the judgment can be done.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the appellants did not challenge the conviction directed against them. However, it would be proper to consider the prosecution evidence before accepting that proposition. Hiralal (PW-2), Lalji Agrawal (PW-3), B.P. Tiwari (PW-4), Ramprakash (PW-5), Vishnu (PW-6) and Balmukund (PW-7) were examined as eye-witnesses. They have stated that accused Santoshdas assaulted the victim Vishnu by an axe, whereas remaining accused assaulted the victim Balmukund by stick causing him various injuries. Dr. M.C. Gupta (PW-8) proved the various injuries caused to the victims, whereas Dr. D.K. Tiwari (PW-9) has proved that a fracture was caused to the victim Balmukund on his right fronto parietal region. Some defence witnesses were examined to show that the victims had fell from the scooter, however looking to the incised wound caused to the victim Vishnu, it could not be caused by falling from a scooter. Therefore, the evidence of the defence witnesses cannot be accepted. The testimony of the victims is duly corroborated by other witnesses, timely lodged FIR and the medical reports, and therefore the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly found that the appellant Santoshdas assaulted the victim Vishnu by a sharp cutting weapon, whereas other appellants assaulted the victim Balmukund causing him grievous injuries, and therefore the appellant Santoshdas was rightly convicted for the offence u/s 324 of IPC and other appellants were rightly convicted for the offence u/s 325 of IPC.

So far as the sentence is concerned, it is apparent that the appellants Santoshdas and Lalludas remained in the custody for four weeks approximately. They have faced the trial and appeal for a pretty long time, whereas they were the first offender. Under such circumstances, looking to their first offence and custody period and the period for which they have faced the trial and appeal, it would be proper that they may not be sent to the jail again. However, some fine may be enhanced. The appellant Gyandas remained in the custody for only two days, but there is no allegation that he caused the victim more than one grave injury. He was also the first offender, and therefore he could be released by imposing the fine only. Looking to his overt-act and the fact that he was the first offender and faced the trial and appeal for a pretty long time, his sentence may be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody by enhancement of some fine.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal of the present appellants is partly allowed. Their conviction awarded by the Court below for the various offences is hereby maintained. The sentence of the appellants Gyandas and Lalludas is hereby reduced to the period which they have already undergone in the custody but fine is enhanced from a sum of Rs. 500/- to a sum of Rs. 7,000/-. The appellants Gyandas and Lalludas are directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today, failing which both of them shall undergo for six months'' RI in default of payment of fine. The jail sentence directed against the appellant Santoshdas is hereby reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody, but fine is enhanced from a sum of Rs. 500/- to a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. He is also directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today, failing which he shall undergo four months'' RI.

At present the appellants are on bail, their presence is no more required, therefore it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged after depositing the fine amount. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance with a direction that attention of the trial Court is invited to the provisions of Section 68 of IPC.