Magan Lal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

1 Cr.A. No.3068/1999 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K.SHRIVASTAVA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3068/1999 APPELLANT : Maganlal Son of Lahvariya Resident of Tikariya, District Mandla, M.P. Versus RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appellant by Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate. Respondent/State by Shri S.M. Lal, Public Prosecutor. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT

(06.11.2012) The judgment passed in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected appeal being Criminal Appeal No.3140/1999 (Sonu Vs. State of M.P.) since both the appeals have arisen out of common judgment.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.1999 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions Trial No.128/1999 convicting the appellant under Section 324 of IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer RI of three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further RI for one month, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2 Cr.A. No.3068/1999 3. The facts in detail are already narrated in para 2 of the impugned judgment and for convenience they are not being reproduced here. Suffice it to say that apart from co-accused Raghu, the appellant of this appeal and appellant of connected appeal Cr. Appeal No.3140/1999 Sonu were charged under Section 307/34 IPC and they have been sentenced to suffer RI of three years and fine of Rs. 1000/- each.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that looking to the evidence placed on record, it is not proved that appellant has committed any offence.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

6. Having learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed in part.

7. In the present case, the injured Rajesh Kumar has been examined as PW-1. According to him, appellant Sonu of connected criminal appeal 3140/99 dealt lathi blow upon him which landed on his back and leg. The appellant of this appeal Maganlal gagged his mouth while co-accused Raghu dealt axe blow on his head. Despite there being roving cross examination this witness remained vivid and nothing has been carved out in order to disbelieve him. The evidence of this witness is 3 Cr.A. No.3068/1999 corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. P.S. Lal (PW-2), who on examining him found two injuries on his person, they are as follows:- (i) Incised wound- 1”.x1/4”./1/8”. right lateral side of occipital region of skull caused by hard and sharp object; (ii) Abrasion- ½”. x ½”. superior aspect of right shoulder caused by hard and blunt object. According to the Doctor, the first injury was caused by sharp edged weapon while the second injury was caused by hard and blunt object. As per prosecution's own case, accused Raghu dealt injury by axe and the act of the present appellant Maganlal is that he gagged the mouth of the injured and, therefore, according to me, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC since an abrasion has been found on the shoulder of the injured which is simple in nature, therefore, the conviction of the appellant Sonu of Criminal Appeal No.3140/1999 is altered from Section 324 to Section 323 IPC. Appellant Sonu has already suffered jail sentence of two months and this would be the appropriate punishment for the offence he has committed. He is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

8. Since the present appellant Maganlal has only gagged the mouth of the injured and co-accused Raghu caused 4 Cr.A. No.3068/1999 axe injury on the head of the injured, therefore, according to me, this appellant has committed offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC. This appellant has already suffered jail sentence of 11 days. Since the incident had occurred on 5.10.1996 i.e. more than 16 years ago, therefore, it would not be appropriate to send him behind the bars once again. However, the amount of fine of ` 1000/- is enhanced to ` 5000/-. Let the balance amount of ` 4000/-shall be deposited by the appellant on or before 31.3.2013 in the Trial Court, failing which he shall further undergo one year RI. Let the entire amount be paid to injured Rajesh Kumar, S/o Bhaddelal Yadav, Agriculturist, R/o Village Tikariya, Thana Tikariya, District Mandla who was examined as PW-1 in the Trial Court towards compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. Learned Trial Court is hereby directed to do the needful in this regard. The bail bonds of this appellant shall stand cancelled only after he deposits entire amount of fine on or before said date.

8. Appellant is hereby directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 17.12.2012 and shall deposit the balance amount of fine. If appellant is unable to deposit the balance amount on this date or deposits only part of the entire amount, learned Trial Court shall give a date to him to deposit the remaining amount and if on that date also, the appellant fails to 5 Cr.A. No.3068/1999 deposit the amount, a further date may be given but that date should not exceed beyond 31.03.2013 and by this date appellant Bastiram should deposit the balance fine amount, failing which he shall undergo the jail sentence of one year RI. In case appellant fails to appear before learned Trial Court on 17.12.2012, the Trial Court shall issue notice to his surety and may pass necessary order against him in accordance with law. After depositing the amount of fine or sending the appellant to jail, the Trial Court shall intimate the Registry of this Court. The Registry is hereby directed to send the original bail bonds papers to learned Trial Court and a photocopy thereof be retained in this file. It is further made clear that after entire amount of fine is deposited by the appellant, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled which shall be paid to injured 9. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. The conviction of appellant under Section 324 IPC is hereby affirmed, however, the sentence is hereby modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the record of connected Criminal Appeal No.3140/1999. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge rao 6 Cr.A. No.3068/1999