1 Cr.A.No.1601/2003 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL, J. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1601/2003 Bhura alias Bhagwan Singh S/o Deviram, aged 40 years, R/o Village-Kaudi, Police Station Raisen, District Raisen ... Appellant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S. Raisen District Raisen ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Ashok Chakraverti, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Pushpraj Singh, Panel Lawyer JUDGMENT 13.12.2011 This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 27.08.2003 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Raisen in Special Case No. 78/2001 convicting the appellant under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to 2 months R.I. and Rs. 100/- fine, under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to 1 year R.I. and Rs. 200/- fine and under Section 452 of IPC and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and Rs. 200/- fine. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 31.05.2001 at about 11:00 p.m. in Village Ratatalai while Kamal Singh PW-2 along with his wife Imarti Bai (PW-1) was sleeping in the house, the door of house knocked by the appellant. Appellant abused Kamal Singh PW-2 and forcefully took him out of the house and assaulted Lathi 2 Cr.A.No.1601/2003 blow which landed on his head and also sustained injury on legs. Appellant ran away from the spot. 3. Imarti Bai (PW-1) lodged FIR at police Station Salamatpur. A case at Crime No. 91/2001 under section 452, 323 and 307 of IPC and 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act was registered against the appellant. 4. Kamal Singh (PW-2) was sent to Public Health Center Sanchi for his medical examination. Dr. S.K. Rai (PW-4) examined and prepared MLC report ExP-1. Kamal Singh (PW-2) sustained 5 injuries in this incident, out of those 4 injuries were on his head and face. Dr. S.S. Kushwaha (PW-5) took X-ray of Kamal Singh vide Ex.P-2 found fracture of front parital bone. 5. In view of the aforesaid medical evidence, it remains no longer disputed that Kamal Singh (PW-2) sustained grievous injuries on his head in this incident. 6. Completing investigation police Salamatpur submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant under section 452, 323 and 307 of IPC and under section 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST Act . Trial Court framed charges under section 452, 323 and 307 of IPC and under section 3 (1) (10) of SC/ST Act. Appellant abjured guilt. Defence of the appellant was false implication. 7. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, statements of Imarti Bai (PW-1), Kamal Singh (PW-2), Mohar Singh (PW-3), Dr. S.K. Rai (PW-4), Dr. S.S. Kushwaha (PW-5), Lallan Ojha(PW-6), Mahesh Chand Saxena (PW-7) and S.R. Yuven (PW-8) were recorded. 8. Appreciating the aforesaid evidence Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 452, 307 of IPC and 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, however convicted him under Section 323, 325 and 452 of IPC and sentenced him as above. 3 Cr.A.No.1601/2003 9. Challenging aforesaid conviction and sentence this appeal has been preferred on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Evidence of prosecution witnesses is suffering in contradiction and exoneration. Conviction is bad in law and sentence is harsh. 10. On the other hand panel lawyer supported the findings of conviction and sentence both. 11. Dr. S.K. Rai (PW-4) examined Kamal Singh (PW-2) and prepared medical report Ex.P-2 on 01.06.2011 as follows:- (1)Lacerated wound 4 c.m. x ½ c.m. x mussel deep on occipital region on the right side of the head. X-ray advised. (2)Abrasion 2 c.m. X 3 c.m. on forehead on right side. (3)Abrasion ½ c.m. x 1 c.m. x skin deep. (4)Abrasion 2 c.m. x ½ c.m. on mussel deep. X-ray advised. (5)Lacerated wound 2 c.m. x ½ c.m. x mussel on left side of lip. Dr. S.S. Kushwaha (PW-5) found a fracture in partial bone as per X-ray report Ex.P-3. 12. Kamal Singh (PW-2) stated that appellant has forcible taken him outside from the house. He was abusing. Imarti Bai (PW-1) his wife has also stated that appellant assaulted her husband. She went to police station alone and lodged FIR. Mohar Singh (PW-3) also reached on the spot after the incident. He has also corroborated the evidence of PW-2. 13. In my considered, Trial Court committed no mistake convicting the appellant under section 325 and 452 of IPC though Trial Court has convicted the appellant under section 323 of IPC also this conviction seems unnecessary and could have been avoided but technically it cannot be said erroneous. 14. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has already suffered a custody of 2 weeks pending 4 Cr.A.No.1601/2003 investigation. This incident had taken place on 01.06.2011 about more than 10 years ago. Appellant is now aged about 55 years. There is no criminal background of the appellant. At this stage no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant back in jail. 15. In view of the nature of injuries and manner of incident I am of the considered opinion that for offences under section 323, 325 and 452 of IPC period of jail custody of 2 weeks (14 days) seems to just and proper however in view of the facts and circumstances of the case fine amount requires to be enhanced, hence fine is enhanced from Rs. 200/- to 1,000/- similarly fine amount under section 452 is enhanced from Rs. 200/- to 500/-. 16. Appeal is allowed on the point of sentence by reducing jail sentence and enhancing the fine amount. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. 17. Appellant is directed to appear before Trial Court for depositing the balance fine amount 1100/- on or before 31.01.2012 or to undergo the default sentence as awarded by the Trial Court in this regard. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. C.C. as per rules. (TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL) JUDGE ak