i-/ p^ c^ ^( ,v ^ ('-r^ -''In The HIGH COURT OG flADHYA pRADEsH AT.JABALPUtl.. h^ ^ Criminal ^>peai So._of 1994 ^ -..\ A££ajLAKT_S RESPOUDSKTS s 1. Jagtu Ram S/o pila DasM...a^a^"-</ ; Cultivatpr^ aged about /22^years^^ 2. jagdish s/o plla Das Mada, Sged about 25 years^ • .. , Both cultivatorg and R/o Vlll,Bade' Bendri, p. s.Kondagaon, Dlstt.B^stsr Versus - / i state of M«p« AppEAL U/s 374(2) OF THB CRIMI&AL PROCEDURE COD B: ^ HI6H COURT OF CHH^TTES^RH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hori'ble AAr, JysticB Pntinker Dwal<@r CrimJnGJ Appeal No. 45 of 1994 APPELLANTS RESPON&ENT Jagtu Ram A another. Versus State.of Madhya Pradesh Mr. Vivek Shrivastavo., counse! for the appeiJGnts. Mr. Pankaj Shrjvastava, PL for the State/respondent. CRIMINAL APPE^L UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF 0_R^__E_R (13.08.2010) Present •appeai orises out of the impugned Judgment ond order dated 30.12.1993 passed by 3 Addltiond SSSSJORS Judge, Jagddpur, Distrlct Bostar in Sesslons Trjd No. 189/1989 convieting the accused/appeltent No. 1 u/S 326 IPC and Gppeiiant No. 2 u/S -323 IPC and sentenclng each of them to undergo rigorous imprjsonment for four years with fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of poyment of fine to further und'ergo imprisonment for slx months u/S 326 IPC A rlgorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 of the Indiors Pena! Ccde, respectiveiy. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.8.1988 F.I.R. (Ex. P-25) was lodgsd by .^amdas (PW-7) - Vijjage Kotwar ollsging in it that Shyom Singh (PW-1) ond Sagni Bd (PW-2) have been oissauited by the accused persons namely Peeladas, Jagdeesh, Jagturam & Luiawith the he-lp of oxe as o. result of which they sustdned injuries. On the basis of this rsport, offenc®un.der Section 307/34 of the Indlan Pena! Code was registered against the four obove named accu-sed persons. After 2 jnvestigcition challan was fiied on 4.10.1988 for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penai Code. 3. So as to hojd the accused persons gulity, prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused persons were a!so recorded under Section 313 of the Code of CriminG! Procsdure in which th@y denied the charges jevelled agalnst them ond pleaded their innocence and fdse impiication in the case. 4. After hearlng the parties the trial Courl- has acquitted the accused persons nameiy PeeJQdas <& Lula but has convicted the present accused/appelionts os msntloned above. Hence this appeai. 5. Counsei for the appeiiants submits that once on the same set of evidence the court beiow ho.s acquitted the two other accused persons, present appeilants ought to haye been acquitted by the court beiow. He further submits that though injuries sustoined by victim Shyam Singh (PW-1) have been shown as simpie in nature but it has been opined by the Doctor that the injuries sustained by him is dangerous to his life. He further submits th.at out of 13 injurles sustained by Shyam Singh (PW-t), on!y injury No. 2, 4 ond 7 were grievous in nature ond rests are simp.ie in nature and, therefore, a Jenient yiew could have been taken by the court bejow. He further submits that the appe!!ants have been fojsejy implicatsd because of locol viliage poiitacs. Lastiy it hos been argued that appejlants haye remained in Jail for about 24 days and the incident took ploce in the year 1988 i.e. about 22 yeors back, •^ 't. "\ no useful purpose woujd be served in sending them to Jaii a^d it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on them is reduced to the period aiready undergone by them. 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned Judgment, it has been argued by the Stote Counsei that the court beiow has aiready taken a ienient view whiie convicting the accused/appeiionts otherwise the manner in which the vlctims namely Shyam Singh (PW-1) and Sognj Bai (PW-2) have been assaulted shows the gravity and heinousness of the crime. He further submits thot the victim namely Shyoim Singh (PW-1) was lucky where he couid survive otherwise the appellants have made al! the efforts to ki!! hlm. 7. I heard counsel for the parties alfid perused the materlai avaiiabieon record includingjudgment impugned. 8. Victim Shyam Singh (PW-1) has stated that at the reievant time he was working as Choukidar in the Government Nursery an.d on the dote of incident when the accused/appeiiont No. 1 was grozing his cattle in the Sovemment Nursery, he asked thern not to do it, he WGS threatened by (K;cused/appej|ant No. 1 by saying that he wouid be killed and thereafter when he reached to his house, ai! the accused persons cojne there having oxe in their hond, He has further stated that firstiy the accused persons namely Jagturam A Luta caused him injury on his head and thereafter, the said accused persons have brutaliy assaulted him. He has specifjcaily a!!eged that on account of the injury sustained by him, his bram materio! came out and he ateo sustdned various injuries on the othsr part of his body. He furi'hersubmits that incident was witnessed by Sagri Bai and other pe.rsons but they ,--y^ :"y^ ^ " ^/^ ^. '«&.--'-% ; '6. ' •-> '! J .t\ '^^^ -^, 'f; ^ did not come to his rescue. He has stated that for about 24 days he was unconscious in the Hospitd and was not in a position to wdk and he WQS disehorged from the hospltal after about 1 i- months. Statement of this witness has duly support-ed by his wlfe Sagni Bal (PW-2) and she h.as stated that the accused/appeilant No, 2 Jagdish had dso given a b!ow of JQthi on her head as a resu!t of which shs sustdned number of injuries. Dharmu Lai (PW-3) is Q Patwarl, who had pre^red the spot made vide Exs.P-1 & P-2. Sunhore Das (PW-5) has not supported the prosecution cose and ho-s been declared hostiie. Sukman (PW-6) is a Seizure witne.ss has though admitted his signature on th.e seizure memo but hos denied the contents of the same. Ramdas (PW-7) is the person who !odge the First Information Report vide Ex. P-25 has supported the prosecution ca.se. Ranjit Ekka (PW-9) - Inve.stigatjng Officer has suppori'ed the prosecutio-n case. ^..L Sharmc (PW-10) Assistont Sub Inspector who got recordsd the F.I.R. (Ex.P-25). Dr. ^.S. Bachchu (PW-11), who had exoimined the victims nameiy Shycim Singh (PW-1) and Sagni Bai (PW-2) ond had given his report Ex.P-17 has CQtegorically stated that Shyom Singh (PW-. 1) had suffered about 13 injurles jnciudlng fracture on !eft frontal bone and zygomatic bon®.He has further stated that injuries No. 2, 6 and 7 were grievous in nature and in respect of victim Sagni Boi (PW-2), it hos been stated that injuries sustained by her is simple in noture. 10. Minute examination of the witnesses mo.kes it c!eo.r that on the fateful day the accused/appellants have brutal!y ossauited the vlctlm nomeiy Shyam Singh (PW-1) and Sagni Bai (PW-2) and on account of the so.Id assauit, Shyam Singh (PW-1) ^'^-. '--^&s' ^ has suffered 13 injuries including three- grieyous injuries, thls Court is of the considered opinion that their conviction is in accordance with iaw and, therefore, the conviction of both the appeiiants Is maintained. 10. So far os the sentence part of the accused persons are concerned, it has been submitted by the counse! for the appeliants that ths incidsnt took piace. in the year 1988 i.e. about 22 years back, that the appeilants have remalned in Jaii for about 24 dctys and, therefore, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. This argument is accepted in reiation to the oppeilant No. 2, who has been convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code ond sentenced to undergo rigorous Jmprisonment for six months. 11. In view of above, conviction part of the impugned judgment as regards appellcnt No. 2 is mai.nto.ined. However, a-s he hos aiready remained in jaii for about 24 days and tho.t the incident took p!ace in the ye.ar 1988 i.e. about 22 yeors back, jail sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by hlm. However in lieu thereof the appeliant No. 2 shaij deposit Rs.1,000/- within five months from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the tria! Magistrate who in turn shal! give the same to the victims nameiy Sh.yam Slngh (PW-1) and Sagni Bai (PW-2). Fai!ure,if any, in depositing the amount within the period stlpuiated, would make the appeliant No. 2 !iable to be inside the jail for o further period of three months rigorous imprisonment. E^. 6 .< •-, m.^T, '^ D/- 12. In respect of appellant No. 1, conviction and sentence owarded by the trio.! Court is fuily justified and does not require any mterference. 13. The appeal thus part-y succeeds. Conviction and sentence of appellQnt No.l snd conviction of appeliant No. 2, are hereby maintajned. The appellanf No. 1 is on baii. His bai! bonds stand concelled. He be sent to jail immediateiy for serving out the remGining sentence. However, the sentence of appeilant No. 2 is reduced to the period aiready undergone as indicated above. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^