1 Cr.A. No.1968/2002 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR BEFORE : TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL, J. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1968 OF 2002 APPELLANT: Anthram @ Antya, S/o Bhanghilal Mahar, aged 44 years, R/o Gram Machinetola Pipariya, Thana-Ari, District- Seoni (M.P.) Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh Through S.H.O, Thana Ari, District- Seoni (M.P) ****************************************************************** For Appellant : Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Pushpraj Singh, Panel Lawyer ****************************************************************** J U D G M E N T 13/12/2011 This appeal has been preferrred against the judgment dated 11/12/2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Seoni in ST.No.79/2002 convicting the appellant under section 294 and 324 of IPC and sentenced to 1 month R.I and 1 year R.I respectively. 2. Facts of the case in short are that on 24/06/2001 at about 6.45 PM in Village-Pipariya, Shiv Singh Bisan (PW-1) and his father Dhal Singh Bisan (PW-2) while they were sitting outside their house were abused by the appellant. On protesting, the appellant caught Dhal Singh (PW-2) attracted by shrieks his son Shiv Singh Bisan (PW-1) reached to rescue. Appellant assaulted Dhal Singh (PW-2) with 'Gupti' and then assaulted to Shiv Singh Bisan (PW-1) also. Dhal Singh (PW-2) sustained incised wound on his ribs left side. Shiv Singh Bisen (PW-1) sustained injury on his stomach. 3. FIR Ex.P-1 was lodged by Shiv Singh Bisen (PW-1) at police station Ari, District- Seoni. A case under section 294, 324 IPC was registered against the appellant. Next day appellant was arrested and 'Gupti' was seized from his possession vide Ex.P-2 Seizure Memo. 2 Cr.A. No.1968/2002 Shiv Singh Bisen (PW-1) and Dhal Singh (PW-2) both were sent for their medical examination. Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 are their M.L.C Reports. 4. Completing investigation police-Ari, District Seoni submitted charge sheet against the appellant under section 294, 324 IPC. Since, a cross case also been registered against Shiv Singh Bisen (PW-1) and Dhal Singh (PW-2) under The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hence both cases were tried by Special Judge. In present case, trial Court framed charges under section 294 and 324 of IPC against the appellant. Appellant abjured guilt. Defence of the appellant was that of private defence of person and property both. 5. To substantiate the charge statements of Shiv Singh Bisen (PW-1), Dhal Singh Bisan, father (PW-2) Bhoju @ Bhojraj (PW-3), Dhuli Chand (PW-4), Rooplal (PW-5), Manohar Bisen, aged 5 years (PW-6), Kharag Singh (PW-7), Dr. Smt. Usha Shri Pandey (PW-8), MP Prajapati, Sub Inspector (PW-9), Dr. S.C. Jain (PW-10), and Laxman Prasad Mishra, ASI (PW-11) were recorded. Apreciating aforesaid evidenc, trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. 6. This appeal has been preferred on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Fact of cross case has not been properly taken into consideration. Shiv Singh Bisen (PW-1) and Dhal Singh (PW-2) also have been convicted for their acts committed by them in this incident. Conviction is bad in law. Sentence is harsh. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer supported the finding of conviction and sentence both. 7. In view of the medical evidence of Dr. Smt. Usha Shri Pandey (PW-8), and Dr. S.C. Jain (PW-10) and further in view of the MLC reports Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-6 respectively, there appears no doubt at all that Shiv Singh Bisen (PW-1) and Dhal Singh (PW-2) both sustained incised wounds though simple in nature. 8. Shiv Singh Bisen (PW-1) and Dhal Singh (PW-2) both have denied suggestion that they were the aggressors and they started the fight. Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper prespective. Individual acts of each person has been taken into consideration. In my considered opinion there appears no perversity in the findings of conviction. 3 Cr.A. No.1968/2002 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this incident appellant himself sustained injuries though could not be proved by medical evidence in this case and dispute started on a very minor issue of right of way. It is further submitted by learned counsel for appellant that this incident took place all of a sudden, more than 10 years back, therefore no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant back in jail. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that pending investigation, trial and appeal appellant has suffered custody period of about 2 months (60 days). 10. In view of the nature of the injuries and manner in which incident occured in my considered opinion for an offence under section 324 IPC, jail sentence of 60 days would be sufficient if fine of Rs.1000/- is also imposed on him. It would serve the purpose and will meet the ends of justice. 11. Conviction of appellant under section 294 and 324 IPC is affirmed. Sentence is reduced to 2 months undergone period and Rs.1000/- fine. In default of payment of fine, appellant shall undergo 2 months R.I. 12. Appellant is directed to remain present before the trial court on or before 18th January, 2012 for payment of fine or to undergo default jail sentence as the case may be. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. (Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge tarun 4 Cr.A. No.1968/2002