Full Judgment
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2), Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.03.2000, delivered by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No.164/1996, convicting the appellant under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.12.1995 at about 09:30 pm Raj Kumar, nephew of the applicant on Egg shop of complainant Rajesh Kumar received injury in his hand, when he was cleaning the Egg shop. Raj Kumar reached at his home. The allegation against the applicant Munna is that he immediately came to his Egg shop and caused simple injury on the neck of the complainant Rajesh Kumar.
3. In order to bring home the charges against the appellant the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited the documents vide Exh.P/1 to P/16.
4. The learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur after marshalling of evidence of prosecution witnesses acquitted the appellant from the charge punishable under Section 307, IPC but, found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324, IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above, hence this appeal.
5. Shri V.K. Rishi, learned counsel for the appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the learned trial Court grossly erred while passing the impugned judgment. The evidence of complainant (PW-3) is full of contradictions and omissions. Even the FIR is concocted, hence, need not to be accepted, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent- State submits that after due appreciation of prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court has found the offence proved against the appellant which requires no interference.
7. After perusing the impugned judgment and statements of prosecution witnesses particularly statement of complainant Rajesh Kumar (PW-3) as well as the record of the trial Court, I am of the view that no error has been committed by learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in recording the guilt of the appellant and convicting and sentencing him for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.
8. Though prosecution witnesses Dharmendra Patel (PW-1), Anand Kumar Vishwakarma (PW-2), Raj Kumar Barman (PW-7), Madan Rajak (PW-8), Paras Kumar Kori (PW-9) and nephew Raj Kumar (PW-11) were declared hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to mention here that Raj Kumar (PW-11) nephew of the accused stated that he is responsible to cause injury on the neck of the complainant Rajesh.
9. Discrepancies which have been highlighter of lengthy cross examination of complainant Rajesh Kumar (PW-3) do not rely earned the status of contradictions to make the evidence of Rajesh Kumar (PW-3) impeachable, incredible or not beyond reproach. Medical evidence, statement of Dr. A.K. Sinha (PW-6) and his MLC report (Exh. P-15) fully supports the statement of Rakesh Kumar (PW-3).
Dying declaration of Rajesh Kumar were also recorded and Dr. Khan (PW-10) is of the opinion that injury was caused by sharp edged weapon but nature of injury was simple. Dr. Khan (PW-10) replied to the Court question that due to this injury death was not possible.
10. Now the question arises that as to how a balance should be struck and maintained in regard to the sentence.
11. More than 19 years have been elapsed from the date of incident. It is pertinent to mention here that during trial the the appellant has already suffered the jail sentence of about 7 days w.e.f. 17.12.1995 to 23.12.1995 and after conviction the appellant has suffered the jail sentence of about 36 days w.e.f. 14.03.2000 to 19.04.2000 i.e. total 43 days. In this view of the matter, no fruitful purpose is going to be served by again sending the appellant to the jail, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if the jail sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
12. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that in the instant case, more important sentence should be that the appellant should be sentenced to the period already undergone by him as against the aforesaid awarded sentence.
13. In the result upholding the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, I reduce the jail sentence awarded to the appellant to the period already undergone by him. The appeal, to that extent, is allowed and the impugned judgment is modified.
14. The appellant is on bail, his bail bond and surety bond stands discharged.
15. Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with copy of this order for information and necessary action.