Sonsay Gond vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Tarun Kumar Kaushal, J.—This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 05.12.1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Mandla in S.T. No. 60/95 convicting the appellant u/s 326 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year.

Facts of the case, in short, are that on 08.11.94 at about 10:00 a.m. there had been some altercation between appellant and his nephew Gangaram ( PW-1) injured saying that some deadly evil of family of Gangaram in making troubles to the appellant. Appellant dealt Balua (axe like weapon) blow on his face. Gangaram ( PW-1) sustained incised wound on his temple (kanpati). FIR Ex. P1 was lodged by PW-1 at Motinala Police. A case u/s 307 of IPC at Crime No. 48/94 was registered. PW-1 was sent for medical examination and was advised for Xray also. Appellant was arrested on 10.11.94 and sent for judicial custody. After completing investigation, citing 16 witnesses Police Motinala submitted a chargesheet against the appellant u/s 307 of IPC.

Charge u/s 307 of IPC was framed against the appellant. Appellant abjured guilt. Defence of the appellant was that of false implication. To substantiate the case of prosecution statements of Gangaram ( PW-1), Bajrobai ( PW-2), Dr. B.G. Dubey ( PW-3), Dr. N.D. Peepray ( PW-4), R.C. Chourasia ( PW-5), Dr. R.C. Rai ( PW-6), P.S. Pandey, Sub Inspector ( PW-7), N.K. Bental, Station House Officer ( PW-8) and D.D. Bairagi, A.S.I. ( PW-9) were recorded. After appreciating aforesaid evidence trial court acquitted the appellant from charge u/s 307 of IPC, however convicted him u/s 326 of IPC and sentenced as above.

This appeal has been preferred on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Medical evidence is also insufficient. Conviction is bad in law. Sentence is harsh. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer supported the finding and conviction of sentence both.

In view of the evidence of Dr. B.G. Dubey ( PW-3), Dr. N.D. Peepray ( PW-4), R.C. Chourasiya, Attendant Hospital ( PW-5), Dr. R.C. Rai ( PW-6), MLC report Ex. P2, Xray reference letter Ex. P3, Bed ticket and treatment Ex. P5 and Ex. P6, it remains no longer disputed that there had been an injury on head on the injured that is Gangaram ( PW-1) containing a fracture of front parietal bone.

Gangaram ( PW-1) though partly supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile, but had specifically stated that injury was caused by appellant on his person. Admittedly, injured is a close relative of the appellant that is nephew and was living in his house. It has also come on record that at the time of incident, the appellant was in intoxicated condition. Some injuries has been caused to the injured during scuffling also. Trial court has taken above circumstances into account and considered them in proper prospective and that is why appellant was acquitted of charge u/s 307 of IPC.

In my considered opinion there appears no error in holding the appellant liable for causing injury by a sharp edged weapon by Trial Court. I see no illegality and perversity in so far finding on conviction u/s 326 is concerned.

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there had been a 55 days custody period to the credit of the appellant pending investigation and trial. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and relationship between the parties, no useful purpose would be served to send back in jail to the appellant after such a long period.

Considering the relationship between the parties and nature and manner of the incident, I am of the view that no further jail sentence is required in addition to 55 days custody period in this matter. However in the interest of justice sentence of fine of Rs. 3,000/also be imposed on the appellant and in default of payment of fine appellant shall undergo 2 months simple imprisonment.

As discussed above appeal is allowed in part on the part of sentence. Charge u/s 326 of IPC is affirmed. The sentence is reduced to 55 days already undergone period and Rs. 3000/fine. In default of payment of fine amount appellant shall undergo 2 months simple imprisonment.

Appellant is directed to remain present in Trial Court on or before 10th April 2012 to deposite the fine amount or to undergo the simple imprisonment, as the case may be.

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.