1 Cr.A.No.969/2006 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH : TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL, J. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 969/2006 1. Ramswaroop Soni S/o Shri Hemraj Soni, aged 60 years, 2. Rajkumar Soni S/o Shri Ramswaroop Soni, aged about 22 years, Both R/o Village Raiyasaanta, P.S. Semariya, District Panna (MP) ... Appellants Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Police Station Semariya, District Panna (MP) ... Respondent For Appellants : Shri Rajmani Singraul, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Vinod Fouzdar, Panel Lawyer JUDGMENT 13.12.2011 This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 29.04.2006 passed by Sessions Judge Panna in S.T. No. 53/2005 convicting the appellants under Section 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to 1 year R.I. and fine Rs. 1000/- each, in default of fine simple imprisonment for 6 months. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 17.08.2004 at about 7:00 a.m. while Chhotelal (PW-3) was going towards milk vendor, was assaulted by his step brother Rajkumar (appellant No.2) by axe. 2 Cr.A.No.969/2006 He sustained 3 head injuries on account of that. Chhotelal PW-3 was further assaulted by his father appellant No. 1. 3. PW-3 was taken to police station Semariya and lodged FIR Ex.P-4. A case at Crime No. 140/2004 was registered under section 342, 307/34 of IPC against appellants and two others. PW-3 was taken to hospital for medical examination. His dying declaration was also recorded by Additional Tehsildar at hospital. His X-ray was taken. 4. Completing the investigation police Semariya submitted charge-sheet against appellants and two others under section 342, 307 of IPC. Trial Court framed charges under section 342 and 307 of IPC. Appellants abjured guilt. Defence of the appellants was that of false implication on account of family dispute and enmity. 5. To substantiate the case of the prosecution statements of Purshotam (PW-1,) Ramcharan (PW-2), Chhotelal (PW-3), Dhruv Kumar (PW-4), Kanhaiya Soni (PW-5), Anand Vinchurkar (PW-6), Girja Prasad Lodhi (PW-7), Dr. Praveen Jadiya (PW-8), Ravi Kiran (PW-9) and M.A. Khan (PW-10) were recorded. 6. Appreciating aforesaid evidence Trial Court has acquitted the remaining accused persons of all the charges and further acquitted the appellants of the charges under Section 342/307 of IPC, however convicted the appellant under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced as above. 7. This appeal has been preferred on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Evidence of prosecution witnesses is suffering from contradictions, omissions and exaggerations. Conviction is bad in law and sentence is harsh. 8. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer supported the conviction and sentence both. 3 Cr.A.No.969/2006 9. Dr. Praveen Jadiya (PW-8) examined Chhotelal on 17.08.2004 at Primary Health Center and found injuries as follows. (1)Incised wound 5 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm on right parietal bone. (2)Incised wound 2 cm x ¼ cm x ¼ cm on left parietal region. (3)Incised wound 2 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm on the back side of the head. (4)Incised wound 3 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm on left leg near ankle. (5)Incised wound 3 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm on left leg near ankle. Dr. Praveen Jadiya prepared MLC report vide Ex.P-13. Advised X-ray for head injury. 10. Dr. Anand Vinchurkar (PW-6) did not find any fracture on the person of PW-3 after X-ray. 11. In view of the aforesaid medical evidence it remains no longer disputed that injured sustained simple injuries caused by sharp aged weapon. 12. In view of the evidence of Chhotelal (PW-3), I see no perversity in finding and conviction recorded by Trial Court against the appellant under Section 324 of IPC. 13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant No.1 is an old 65 years person having 24 days custody period to his credit. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that appellant No.2 was a young boy of 22 years at the time of incident and had suffered 10 days jail custody pending investigation and trial. No useful propose would be served in sending back them to jail. 14. In view of the relationship between the parties, nature of injuries, and manner of incident for an offence under section 324 of IPC undergone period of about 24 days by appellant No. 1 and 10 days by appellant No.2 seems to be just, proper and sufficient, provided fine amount is enhanced. 4 Cr.A.No.969/2006 15. In view of the totality and facts of the case for an offence under section 324 of IPC for causing injuries to PW-3, son and step brother of the appellants respectively. Jail sentence of undergone period and fine of Rs. 3,000/- seems to be just and proper and will meet the ends of justice. 16. This appeal is allowed in part on the part of sentence. 17. Appellants are directed to remain present before Trial Court on or before 31.01.2012 for payment of balance fine amount or to undergo default sentence as the case may be. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. (TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL) JUDGE ak