Umed Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

N.K. Gupta, J.—The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC and sentenced for 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- vide judgment dated 8.12.2008 passed by the learned JMFC, Bareli in criminal case No. 393/2001, whereas criminal appeal No. 119/2008 filed by the applicant was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.11.2011 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments, the applicant has preferred the present revision. The prosecution''s case, in short, is that, on 3.5.2001 at about 5.30 p.m., the victim Hakam Singh (P.W. 5) was sitting in the shop of one Jassu @ Jasraj (P.W. 2) at village Bareli. The applicant came to the shop of the witness Jassu and took the victim with the pretext that he wanted to talk to the victim. He took the victim to the hospital compound and thereafter, he started assaulting him. On shouting of the victim Hakam Singh, the witnesses Ramkumar and Muneem came to the spot and therefore, after giving a threat to the victim, the applicant left the spot. The victim sustained the injuries in both the legs and left wrist. He went to the Police Station Bareli, where he had lodged the FIR, Ex. P/7. He was sent for his medico legal examination. Dr. B.D. Khare (P.W. 1) examined him at Community Health Center, Bareli and gave his report, Ex. P/1. He found 7 simple injuries to the victim. However, for various injuries in his leg, the victim was referred for x-ray examination. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari (P.W. 7) examined the complainant radiologically at Astha Hospital, Bhopal and he gave his report, Ex. P/10. He found fractures in both the ankles of the complainant. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court.

The applicant abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea and no defence evidence was adduced.

The learned JMFC, Bareli, after considering the prosecution''s evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above, whereas the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed in toto.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

In the present case, eye witnesses Jasraj (P.W. 2) and Rajkumar (P.W. 3) have turned hostile. Hakam Singh (P.W. 5) has stated about the entire incident. No material contradiction is found in the statement of the witness Hakam Singh, so that his testimony may be disbelieved. His testimony is duly corroborated by timely lodged FIR, Ex. P/7 and medical report, Ex. P/1 proved by Dr. B.D. Khare (P.W. 1). It was suggested by the learned defence counsel that such injuries could be caused due to fall from the motorcycle and Dr. Khare has accepted it but, maximum injuries were found on the left side of the body of the victim but, one injury was found on right ankle joint. In fall from motorcycle, no such injury of second side of the body could be caused. There is no enmity shown by the learned counsel for the applicant with the complainant Hakam Singh, so that he would have falsely implicated the applicant in the matter. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari (P.W. 7) has proved that the victim sustained fractures in both the ankle joints. Under such circumstances, by corroboration of medical evidence and the timely lodged FIR, the testimony of the complainant can be believed beyond doubt and it is proved beyond doubt that the applicant assaulted the victim for 7-8 times, causing fractures in both the ankle joints and therefore, both the Courts below have rightly convicted the applicant for the offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC.

So far as the sentence is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the first offender, who faced the trial, appeal and revision since the year 2001 and now approximately 13 years are passed. He remained in the custody for more than one month during the present revision and therefore, it is prayed that he may not be sent to the jail again. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant is acceptable. It is true that the applicant was the first offender, who remained in the custody for more than a month during the pendency of the present revision. He has faced the trial, appeal and revision for more than 13 to 14 years and now he is settled in his life, therefore, it is not a case, in which the applicant may be sent to the jail again for execution of remaining jail sentence and therefore, the jail sentence directed against the applicant may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody but, fine amount may be enhanced, so that a proper compensation may be given to the complainant.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed. Conviction directed against the applicant for offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC is hereby maintained but, sentence is reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody. However, fine is enhanced from a sum of Rs. 500/- to a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The applicant is directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within three months from today, failing which he shall undergo for 6 month''s rigorous imprisonment. If fine is deposited then, a sum of Rs. 9,000/- be provided to the victim Hakam Singh S/o. Narottam Singh, R/o. Dal Mill Mohalla, Bareli, District Raisen, by way of a compensation.

The applicant is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. A copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below along with their records for information and compliance. Attention of the trial Court is invited to the provisions of section 68 of IPC that if fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated period then, provisions u/s 68 of IPC shall be followed.