Harisingh and ors. Vs. State of M.P.

Harisingh and ors. vs State of M.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Aug 04, 2004

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/508379

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/508379
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.L. Kochar, J.
Decided On: Aug 04, 2004
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 512/2004
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal - Compounding of Sentences - Sections 326 and 326 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Dispute took place between appellants and victim all of sudden - Appellants assaulted on victim -Victim sustained injuries - Appellants tried under Sections 326 and 326 read with 34 of IPC and convicted by Trial...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 323 and 326; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 320(6) and 401

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Harisingh and ors.

Advocate Mayank Upadhyaya, Adv. and ;Manoj Saxena, Adv. for ;Ramsingh

Respondent

State of M.P.

Advocate Amitab Upadhyaya, Panel Lawyer

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 323 and 326; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 320(6) and 401
Reported In: 2005(1)MPHT13

Excerpt

criminal - compounding of sentences - sections 326 and 326 read with 34 of indian penal code, 1860(ipc) - dispute took place between appellants and victim all of sudden - appellants assaulted on victim -victim sustained injuries - appellants tried under sections 326 and 326 read with 34 of ipc and convicted by trial court - hence, present revision and application filed by victim for compounding of sentences - held, after taking in to consideration evidences of witness, incident occurred all of sudden - when incident occurred appellants no 2,3,4 did not present there - therefore, appellant no. 2,3,4 are not liable for act of appellant no1 - evidence does not show that appellants were premeditation for causing grievous injuries - therefore, appellants no 2, 3, 4 acquitted from section 323 of ipc - application for compounding sentence with regard to appellant no 1 refused because of offence under section 326 of ipc was not compoundable - conviction of appellant no 1 maintained under section 326 of ipc but in view of compromised sentence reduced to period already under gone with fine - hence, revision allowed in part - motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 147; [a.k. patnaik, cj, s.s. jha & a.m. sapre, jj] liability of insurer - third party insurance held, the insured who is a party to the insurance is not a third party for the purpose of chapter xi of the act, particularly section 147 thereof. thus, any person other than the insurer and the insured who are parties to the insurance policy is a third party. the insurer, however, would not be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of..........has already filed application.6. having heard the learned counsel for parties and after perusing the entire record, there is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for applicants regarding conviction of applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 under section 326 read with section 34 of ipc. there is no evidence on record that there was pre-meeting of mind, premeditation and pre-plan between the applicants for causing grievous injuries to the complainant by sharp edged weapons. according to the prosecution case itself the incident had occurred all of a sudden when the applicant no. 1 harisingh was taking his bullock cart through the field of the complainant. at that time, applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 were not present. at the time of causing of the injury by spear (ballam), the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 were not present. therefore, for the act of applicant no. 1 harisingh, causing grievous injuries by spear (ballam), applicants no. 2 hanumantsingh, no. 3 indarsingh and no. 4 jagdishsingh could not be held liable. therefore, the conviction of the applicant nos. 2, 3 and 4 is hereby set aside instead thereof they are convicted under section 323, ipc.7. the learned counsel filed application for compounding the offence and the complainant ramsingh is also present before this court. the complainant has submitted that he has compounded the offence without any threat, inducement or promise. he has also submitted that in the lower appellate court he had filed an application for compounding the offence. according to him, he and the- applicants are residents of same village and now they want to maintain peace and harmony. the application for compounding the offence filed by the complainant so far as the applicants no. 2 hanumantsingh, no. 3 indarsingh and no. 4 jagdishsingh are concerned, is allowed. they are acquitted from the offence under section 323 of the ipc. the trial court is directed to release them forthwith if not required in any other case. the fine amount, if.....

Full Judgment

S.L. Kochar, J.

1. This revision has been preferred by the applicants against the judgment dated 18-6-2004 passed by II Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Narsinghgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2003 arising out of Criminal Case No. 370/2000, judgment dated 28-11-2002 passed by learned JMFC, Narsinghgarh, whereby affirmed the conviction of the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 326, 326/34 of IPC but modified the sentence. Instead of three years R.I. with fine of Rs. 750/- the applicant No. 1 Harisingh has been sentenced to R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 750/- and applicants No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 750/- each under Section 326/34 of IPC.

2. The learned Counsel for applicants Shri Mayank Upadhyaya, has submitted that prior to filing application for grant of permission to compound the offence, the complainant Ramsingh who is present today before this Court had also filed an application dated 10-5-2003 for grant of permission to compound the offences before the learned Lower Appellate Court. This application is available in the record and this Court has perused the same. Looking to these facts, there is no doubt that the complainant Ramsingh s/o Dayaram has amicably settled the dispute between the applicants and also filed application for grant of permission to compound the offences before this Court also.

3. In brief the prosecution case before the Trial Court was that on 9-10-2000 at 5.00 p.m., complainant Ramsingh was going to his house from his field. At that time applicants were taking their bullock cart through his field which was objected by the complainant Ramsingh at which all of a sudden applicant No. 1 Harisingh taken out a Spear (Ballam) from the bullock cart and dealt a blow, causing injury at the wrist of right hand. Thereafter applicants No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh also reached over there and exhorted applicant No. 1. The complainant tried to run away towards his house but he was assaulted by the applicants by lathi. The matter was reported in the Police Station by the complainant. His report is Ex. P-2. In medical examination by Dr. R. Kumar (P.W. 5), injuries were found on the person of the complainant Ramsingh out of which injury No. 1, incised wound on the left forearm and injury No. 3 on right thumb and index finger were caused by sharp edged weapon and rest injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.

4. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the learned Trial Court framed the charges against applicant No. 1 Harisingh under Section 326 and against No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh under Section 326/34 of IPC because the complainant had fracture of left ulna, metacarpal bone and right febula bone underneath the incised injury. The applicants denied the charges before the Trial Court. Therefore, put on trial. The learned Trial Court, after examining the prosecution and defence witnesses and hearing them, convicted the applicants as mentioned above against which they went up in appeal and the Lower Appellate Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence as indicated above. The application filed by the complainant for compounding the offence was dismissed because the offence was not compoundable.

5. The contention of the learned Counsel for applicants is that the conviction of applicants No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh with the help of Section 34 of IPC is not tenable because at the time of causing of injury by sharp side of Spear (Ballam), they were not present. They reached later on and joined the applicant No. 1 Harisingh and thereafter all had caused injuries by lathi and all those injuries are simple in nature. The learned Counsel has also submitted that offence under Section 326 of the IPC would be made out only against applicant No. 1 Harisingh which is not compoundable and against applicants No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC would be made out and this offence is compoundable for which the complainant has already filed application.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for parties and after perusing the entire record, there is substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for applicants regarding conviction of applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC. There is no evidence on record that there was pre-meeting of mind, premeditation and pre-plan between the applicants for causing grievous injuries to the complainant by sharp edged weapons. According to the prosecution case itself the incident had occurred all of a sudden when the applicant No. 1 Harisingh was taking his bullock cart through the field of the complainant. At that time, applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were not present. At the time of causing of the injury by Spear (Ballam), the applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were not present. Therefore, for the act of applicant No. 1 Harisingh, causing grievous injuries by Spear (Ballam), applicants No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh could not be held liable. Therefore, the conviction of the applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is hereby set aside instead thereof they are convicted under Section 323, IPC.

7. The learned Counsel filed application for compounding the offence and the complainant Ramsingh is also present before this Court. The complainant has submitted that he has compounded the offence without any threat, inducement or promise. He has also submitted that in the Lower Appellate Court he had filed an application for compounding the offence. According to him, he and the- applicants are residents of same village and now they want to maintain peace and harmony. The application for compounding the offence filed by the complainant so far as the applicants No. 2 Hanumantsingh, No. 3 Indarsingh and No. 4 Jagdishsingh are concerned, is allowed. They are acquitted from the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. The Trial Court is directed to release them forthwith if not required in any other case. The fine amount, if deposited by them before the Trial Court, be refunded to them.

8. The application for compounding the offence filed by the complainant so far as applicant No. 1 Harisingh is concerned, the same is refused because the offence under Section 326, IPC is not compoundable. The conviction of the applicant No. 1 Harisingh is maintained under Section 326 of the IPC, but in view of the compromise arrived at by the parties, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo R.I. for six months. Out of line amount, Rs. 4,500/- (four thousand five hundred) be paid as compensation to the complainant Ramsingh. The learned Counsel for applicants has submitted that applicant No. 1 Harisingh has already deposited fine amount of Rs. 750/-. If this is so, the learned Trial Court, upon depositing the remaining amount of fine by the applicant No. 1 Harisingh, shall release him forthwith if not wanted in any other criminal case.

9. The revision is allowed in part in the terms as indicated above. A copy of this judgment along with the record be transmitted to the Court below immediately.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2004 Same Parties Harisingh and ors. vs State of M.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S.L. Kochar, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 323 and 326; Cod...

Criminal