Hukumchand And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Present appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 29.09.1998 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Badwaha, West Niman in S.T. No.259/96 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Hukumchand and others). The appellants have been convicted for an offence under Section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years' RI along with fine of Rs.1000/with a default clause to undergo further 6 months' RI.

As per the prosecution case, at about 10 p.m., the accused Kadwa and Baliram caught hold the complainantNahru and thereafter, one Shantibai instigated them stating that Nahru should be killed and the accused-Hukumchand went to his house and assaulted Nahru over his stomach and chest resulting in injuries.

The prosecution story further reveals that Gendalal, Kalabai, Devram, Gajanand and Babu saw the incident and Gendalal took his son-Nahru to the hospital and lodged FIR Ex.P-7. Before the trial court, a large number of witnesses were produced. The trial court examine Nahru, the injured PW 6, his father Gendalal-PW 5, Sheru PW 7, Kalabai PW 10, Dr. J.P. Chouhan PW 1, Patwari Bhagirath PW2, Japti Panchnama witness Tulsiram PW3, Kalu PW4, ASI Suryanath PW8, B.R. Solanki PW9, R.S. Yadav PW11, Dr. Jitendra Tiwari PW12.

PW-4 'Kalu' has not supported the prosecution case. PW-6 'Nahru' in statement before the trial Court has categorically stated that the incident took place at 10 p.m. when he was going to his house and Baliram and Kadwa stopped him and caught hold him and Shantibai shouted that Nahru should be killed and at her instigation, Hukum went to his house and brought a knife, assaulted the complainant over his stomach and chest. He was taken to M.Y. Hospital, Indore and he was in hospital for 10-12 days.

Gendalal-PW5, Sheru PW 7 and Kalabai PW 10 have given similar statements. They have stated that it was Hukumchand, who has assaulted Nahru, who received injuries and the injuries as reflected are the serious injuries. Dr. Chouhan, who has treated the injured has stated that there were three injuries;

(A) One wound in stomach measuring 2/1/4 cm.

(B) Wound over the chest measuring 1/1/2 cm. and

(C) the injuries in stomach measuring to 1/1/2 cms.

As per the description of the injuries, there were three injuries as stated earlier and all the three injuries were stab wounds and the doctor has also opined that such injuries could have been caused by knife. Based upon the statements of the witnesses, the accused persons have been held guilty and they have been sentenced.

Learned counsel has also argued before this Court that Kalabai in her cross examine PW10 has stated that at the time the incident took place, it was 10 pm and the incident took place in total darkness. Similarly, witness Sheru PW7 has also admitted in his cross examination that the incident took place in a narrow passage at 10 pm and there was total darkness. Gendalal-PW5 in his cross examination has stated that there was no electricity pole in the passage, where the incident took place.

Learned counsel has argued before this Court that the witnesses are family members and they have implicated the entire family in respect of crime in question in spite of the fact that the only one person has assaulted Nahru.

It has also been argued before this Court that the injuries are simple in nature and there was no mens rea on the part of the appellants and fight took place all of a sudden only because the accused persons namely Hukumchand and others assaulted the complainant.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has vehementally argued before this Court that as per the opinion of doctor, the injuries are life threatening injuries. On the basis of the statements of eye witnesses and the based upon the statements of the injured, who has categorically stated the involvement of the accused in crime in question, no case for interference is made out in the matter. He has read out the statements of witnesses before this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued before this Court that during the trial, the appellants were in jail for some period. He has informed this Court that appellant No.2Kadwa was in jail w.e.f. 24.05.1996 to 05.07.1996. Appellant No3.-Baliram was in jail w.e.f. 30.06.1996. Appellant No.1Hukumchand was in jail w.e.f. 07.06.1996 to 05.07.1996.

He has also stated that the judgment of conviction was delivered on 29.09.1998 and this Court has granted bail on 31.03.1998 to all the four accused persons, meaning thereby, they were in jail for all most 6 months. He has stated that it is a case at the best under Section 325 of IPC and the appellants are marking their presence right from 1998 to till date before this Court and no purpose is going to be subserved by sending them in jail after a period of 20 years. He has also stated that keeping in view the simple injuries, which are minor stab wounds, the appellants be convicted under Section 325 of IPC and be dealt with leniency.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued before this Court that the seizure of knife was not proved during the trial. He has also argued that there was no blood found on the knife. Dr. Tiwari, in his cross-examination has stated that the injuries inflicted cannot be termed under the heading of grievous hurt.

This Court, in light of the statement of Dr. Tiwari and also keeping in view the nature of injuries is of the opinion that the appellants can be held guilty for offence under Section 325 of IPC and, therefore, they are awarded sentence of two years' RI along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each to be given to the complainant by the trial court and the sentence of two years' RI is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. In lieu of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.

The appeal is partly allowed.