Sudesh Singh and four Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—Vide judgment dated 24.2.2011 passed by the learned C.J.M., Dindori in Criminal Case No. 1130/2009, the applicants were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and each was sentenced with one years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and six months rigorous imprisonment. In Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2011 the learned Sessions Judge, Dindori vide judgment dated 24.6.2011 dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments passed by both the Courts below the applicants have preferred the present revision.

The prosecution''s case in short is that, on 15.7.2009 at about 8.30 a.m. in the morning the victim Ugrasen went to his field at Village Madiyaras, District Dindori to sow paddy. He went along with Uday Singh and Ramkali Bai. The applicants objected about the possession of the property and therefore, a quarrel started. Shyam Singh assaulted the victim Ugrasen by a sharp cutting weapon and thereafter, the remaining applicants assaulted him by sticks. When Uday Singh intervened, he was also assaulted by sticks by the applicants. The FIR Ex. P/9 was lodged in Rojnamcha by Ugrasen about the incident and he and Uday Singh were sent for their medico legal examination. Dr. B.S. Tekam (PW1) examined the victims Ugrasen and Uday Singh and gave his report Ex. P/1 and P/3. He found one incised wound on the forehead of victim Ugrasen and other injuries on his right thigh, right arm and right back whereas, Uday Singh sustained contused injuries on right heel, left thigh and left buttock. After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

The applicants abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea but, Khemkaran (DW1) and Baburam (DW2) etc. were examined to show that the complainants forcefully tried to take the possession of the property.

The learned C.J.M., Dindori after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned above whereas, the appeal filed by the applicants was dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

After considering the evidence given by Ugrasen (PW3), Ramkalibai (PW4), Uday Singh (PW5), Ujjain Singh (PW6) and Daddu (PW7), it appears that the applicant Shyam Singh assaulted the victim Ugrasen by a sharp cutting weapon on his head and thereafter, each of the applicants assaulted him by sticks. When Uday Singh intervened, he was also assaulted by the applicants. The testimony of these witnesses is duly corroborated by the text of FIR Ex. P/9 and the medical reports duly proved by Dr. Tekam. Under such circumstances, it is proved beyond doubt that the applicants assaulted the victim Ugrasen by a sharp cutting weapon on his head.

It appears that the applicants took the plea of right of private defence that they were in possession of the property but, if the complainants were trying to sow the paddy in the field then the FIR could be lodged immediately or the complainants would have been stopped by any other means. It cannot be said that the applicants had a right of private defence over their property. Under such circumstances, looking to the number of injuries caused to victims Ugrasen and Uday Singh, it would be apparent that neither the applicants had any right of private defence nor they assaulted by any sudden or grave provocation. They knew about the result of their overt acts and therefore, it is also established that they assaulted the victims voluntarily.

Since all of the applicants participated in the assault caused to the victim Uday Singh and therefore, each of them is liable for offence punishable u/s 323 of I.P.C. The applicant Shyam Singh assaulted the victim Ugrasen on his head with a sharp cutting weapon and the sharp cutting weapon was visible to all other applicants and thereafter, they assaulted the victim Ugrasen by sticks and therefore, their common intention is very well established with the accused Shyam Singh, who assaulted the victim Ugrasen by a sharp cutting weapon. Under such circumstances, the learned C.J.M. has rightly convicted the applicants for offence punishable u/s 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. (for victim Ugrasen) and Section 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. (for victim Uday Singh) and therefore, there is no basis to intervene in the conviction directed against the applicants.

So far as the sentence is concerned, the applicants are the first offenders and they assaulted the victim when they found that the victims were ready to sow paddy in their field. It was not a pre-planned incident. The applicants remained in the custody for 14-15 days during the pendency of the present revision. Under such circumstances, where they have already suffered with the harassment of appearing before the various Courts in last five years, it is a good case in which their jail sentence may be reduced to the period for which they remained in the custody. However, some fine amount may be enhanced.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the revision filed by the applicants is hereby partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants for offence punishable u/s 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 323 read with section 34 of I.P.C. is hereby maintained but, their sentence is reduced to the period for which they remained in the custody. However, the fine for offence punishable u/s 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to a sum of Rs. 2000/- whereas, no imposition of any fine for the offence u/s 323 of I.P.C. The applicants are expected to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today failing which each shall undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. If fine is deposited then out of that fine amount a sum of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 1000/- be provided to the victim Ugrasen s/o Amrit Singh resident of Village Madiyaras and Uday Singh s/o Kuwar Singh resident of Village Madiyaras respectively.

The applicants are on bail. Their presence is no more required before this Court in the present revision and therefore, it is directed that their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court and appellate Court along with their records for information. However, the attention of the trial Court is drawn to the provisions of Section 68 of I.P.C. that if fine is not deposited within the stipulated period then the provisions u/s 68 of I.P.C. shall be followed.