The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Rambharose

B.D. Rathi, J.—Delay, as pointed out by the Office, is hereby condoned. Heard on admission.

This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 30/7/2010 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Harda, in Sessions Trial No. 48/09, whereby respondent Rambharose, though acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 294 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") has been convicted under Sections 452, 506, 323 and 324 of the IPC.

Prosecution case, in brief is that, on 27/5/09 at 9.30 a.m., respondent not only filthily abused complainant Mukesh, but also trespassed into his house and assaulted his father Shobharam and him with an Axe. At this juncture, Arvind, Sohanlal, Gangaram and Ramdayal, reached at the spot and intervened. Thereafter, respondent, while threatening to kill, fled from the spot. Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) was recorded at the instance of Mukesh upon which Crime was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate, impugned judgment and record of the trial Court were perused.

Respondent was charged u/s 326 of the IPC because complainant Mukesh was assaulted by him with an Axe, resulting into grievous injury on his left hand. Dr. A.C. Sengar (PW7) testified in his evidence that Mukesh was examined by him and he had noticed one incised wound on his left forearm and he had advised X-ray of humerus bone. MLC report (Ex. P/6) was prepared by him. However, the X-ray report has not been produced by the prosecution to prove that Mukesh had received grievous injury caused by sharp edged weapon. The X-ray film and corresponding report (Ex. D/5 & D/4 respectively) produced by prosecution, were proved by the defence as belonging to one Mukesh S/o Bhatt and, therefore, trial Court rightly held that case u/s 326 was not proved by the prosecution against the respondent in regard to injury caused to Mukesh. From the evidence of Mukesh, it is apparent that abuses were not hurled at a public place and, therefore, offence u/s 294 of the IPC was also not found proved. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned judgment was passed by the trial Court.

We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court. The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.