Full Judgment
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2094/1996 Harle and another Vs. State of M.P. As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.
Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate for the appellants. Shri A. Tiwari, Advocate for the Objector. Shri Ashutosh Tiwari, PL for the respondent/State. JUDGMENT
(26/09/2013) 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants u/s 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment dated 5/10/96 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur in S.T. No.24/95 whereby they have been convicted u/s 323, 323/34, 307 of IPC and sentenced to make payment of fine of Rs.25/- each in default to suffer RI for 7 days, undergo RI for 5 years & fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer further RI for 3 months each.
2. It is undisputed on record that complainant and appellants have been entered into a compromise out of the Court and on the basis of said compromise appellants have been acquitted to the charge u/s 323, 323/34 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30/07/94 at about 4.00 PM appellants Bhagwandas and Harle abused 2 the complainant Topal Ladiya thereafter, they assaulted him on his head and right leg by using the farsa and lathis. Complainant lodged the report at police station Suatala. Appellants have been arrested. After due investigation, they have been charge sheeted before the JMFC who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
4. Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges u/s 302, 302/34, 307 of IPC. Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.
5. After appreciation of evidence, appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that trial Court committed the illegality in not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective. It is further submitted it is a case of only simple injuries sustained by complainant Topal said to have been caused by sharp edged weapon therefore, offence u/s 307 of IPC is not proved.
7. Learned counsel for the Objector as well as State have supported the conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment alongwith the statements of complainant Topal (PW-1) and Dr. G.C. Dubey (PW-3) who found one contusion, one lacerated wound and one incised would on the head of complainant and one contusion with swelling on his right leg. Dr. Dubey admitted in his cross examination that there was no fracture on the body of complainant and the injuries sustained by him were simple in nature. In these circumstances, for the injuries like lacerated wound and 3 contusions, the offence u/s 323, 323/34 of IPC said to have been proved for which complainant and appellants entered into a compromise and appellants have been acquitted to the said charges. As far as injury like incised wound is concerned which was simple in nature and cannot be said to be dangerous to life, at the most the offence u/s 324 of IPC is made out against the appellants. Under such circumstances, trial Court committed the illegality in recording the conviction u/s 307 of IPC against the appellants.
9. Consequently, appeal is partly allowed. The conviction recorded u/s 307 of IPC is reduced to the offence u/s 324 of IPC. The incident took place in the year 1994 at that time, the offence u/s 324 of IPC was compoundable. Parties already entered into a compromise thus, appellants are acquitted to the charge u/s 324 of IPC also.
10. Appellants are in jail, they may be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately alongwith copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. (G.S. Solanki) Judge