Full Judgment
(1) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2481/1997 Phool Singh Vs. State of M.P. As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.
Shri S.K. Gangrade, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sameer Chile, PL for the State. JUDGMENT
[19.9.2013].
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by conviction and sentence recorded by Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in S.T. No.177/96 vide order dated 14.10.1997 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 307 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years.
2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 14.3.1996, cow of the appellant entered into the field of complainant Narmada Prasad and caused damage to his crops, thereafter, when Narmada Prasad was taking the cow to Kanji House, appellant intercepted him and gave one blow on his head and one blow on right leg by an Axe. Narmada Prasad sustained injuries. The incident was seen by brother of complainant namely Surendra Kumar. The complainant was taken to the hospital, where he was treated by Dr. Mahendra Kumar Chourey (PW-2). The report was lodged by Surendra Kumar. The appellant was arrested.
3. After usual investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted before the JMFC, Seoni Malva, who committed the case to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad framed the charge under Sections 307 of the IPC.
4. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. (2) 5. On appraisal of evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove, hence this appeal.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective. Although the injured sustained two incised wounds, but the Doctor has not opined that the said injuries were dangerous to life, therefore, no case under Section 307 of the IPC is made out against the appellant. The trial Court has committed illegality in recording the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that it is not in dispute on record that the appellant and complainant have entered into a compromise. Thus, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court be set aside and appellant be acquitted to the aforesaid charge.
7. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State has supported the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record including the statements of injured Narmada Prasad Gour (PW-4), eye witness Surendra Kumar (PW-5) and Mahesh Kumar (PW-1). It is proved on record that on the date of incident, the appellant assaulted complainant Narmada Prasad by an Axe and this fact is corroborated by the statement of Dr. Mahendra Kumar Chourey (PW-2). He found two incised wounds on the person of injured; one on skull and another on left leg near knee joint. He prepared MLC report (Ex.P-4) but he has not given any opinion in regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant. Since the complainant has not sustained any fracture on any part of his body, in my opinion, the case of the appellant would fall under Section 324 of the IPC instead of Section 307 of the IPC and the trial Court has committed (3) illegality in recording the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC. In these circumstances, conviction of the appellant is altered to Section 324 of the IPC from Section 307 of the IPC.
9. It is admitted on record that the complainant and appellant have entered into compromise and this Court vide order dated 14.3.2013 observed that the effect of compromise shall be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence. Since the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is altered to Section 324 of the IPC and the incident had taken place in the year 1996, at that time the offence under Section 324 of the IPC was compoundable, therefore, the compromise entered into between the parties is accepted. The appellant is acquitted to the charge under Section 324 of the IPC.
10. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the compromise entered into between the parties, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is altered to Section 324 of the IPC and in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the appellant is acquitted to the charge under Section 324 of the IPC. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds and surety bonds stands discharged. Record of the trial Court be transmitted along with the copy of this judgment for information and necessary action. (G.S.Solanki) Judge PB