Nirmala Devi Vs. Ravindra Singh

- indian penal code, 1890.sections 307 & 324: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] assault proof - appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - no evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - however opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury held, appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by himr.d. vyas, j.1. this application is filed for transferring civil suit no. 108-a/96 filed by the non-applicant in the court of district judge, ratlam to the court of additional district judge, kachrod.2. the non-applicant had filed the suit for divorce under section 13 of the hindu marriage act. it is alleged in this application that the non-applicant is threatening the applicant to take her life if she did not compromise of the divorce decree. it is stated that on 10.9.1997 when the case was listed before the district judge, ratlam which she attended in the court and after the matter was adjourned when she came out of the court compound, the non-applicant threatened her alongwith some accomplices. she states that she was told that if she did not compromise the divorce she would be done to death.3. looking to the averments in the application which is sworn-in by an affidavit in the interests of justice to direct the transfer of civil suit no. 108-a/96, which was given new number (57-a/98 contrary to the instructions to maintain the same in the district) to the additional district judge, kachrod.4. a judgment was cited by mr. vaya in 1985 mpwn 388, meerabai past v. shivshankar past, in which it was held that mere apprehension of physical harm is no ground for transfer. he pointed out another judgment in jlj 1996 518, usha bai jain (smt.) v. santosh kumar jain, which was followed that judgment. it must be appreciated that in that case what is held is that an apprehension of physical harm is no ground, but in this case there is an apprehension of life, therefore, this case is distinguishable.5. in that view of the matter, the mcc is allowed with the aforesaid observation with no order as to costs.