Kalwant Singh And Ors. vs State Of M.P.

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code,Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months

Under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code,Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months

Under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code,Fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation

Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in the

alternative under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal

Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of

Rs.500/- with default stipulation

examination of Rakesh (PW8), he gave his report Ex.P4 in which he found (i) abrasion of 3x3 cms. on left cheek and (ii) abrasion of 4x3 cms. on left",

ankle. He opined that both the injuries were simple in nature. He has further stated that in reply to a query, he opined vide Ex.P5 that the injuries",

suffered by Jankirao (PW10) were sufficient to cause his death. He has further stated that a knife (Article A) was produced before him for,

examination. On examination of the knife, he has reported vide Ex.P6 that the injuries sustained by Jankirao could be caused by the said knife. He has",

stated that no rod was produced before him for examination. In paragraph 9, he has stated that in Ex.P5, he has not mentioned any specific injury to",

be sufficient for causing death of injured Jankirao. He himself has stated that he had given his opinion based on the examination of all the injuries. But,",

this fact is not mentioned in his report (Ex.P5). In paragraph 12, he has categorically stated that injury No.(i) was not sufficient to cause death.",

Regarding injuries No.(ii), (iii), (iv), (vii) and (viii), without examination of x-ray report, he was unable to state whether these injuries were sufficient to",

cause death or not. Injuries No.(v) and (vi) were not sufficient to cause death and injury No.(ix) was simple in nature. He has further stated in,

paragraph 17 that when Jankirao was brought to the hospital, he was conscious and was able to speak. Injured Jankirao was further treated in Sector",

9 Hospital, Bhilai by Dr. Kalpana Kumari (PW9). She has stated that smell of liquor was coming out from the mouth of Jankirao and he had sustained",

injuries on many parts of the body. Her report is Ex.D1.,

As per the statement of G.P. Sharma (PW1), Jankirao was admitted in Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai on 12.12.1998 and was discharged on 17.12.1998.",

Bed head ticket was seized vide Ex.P2.,

Nizamuddin Khan (PW3), M.K. Elangoswami (PW4), Akhilesh Singh (PW5), Dhanau (PW6) and B. Mohan (PW7) are the witnesses before",

whom memorandum statements of the Appellants were recorded and some articles were seized, but they have not supported the case of the",

prosecution and all of them have been declared hostile.,

Sub-Inspector K.L. Tandan (PW12), Inspector Shiv Kumar Yadav",

(PW13) and Sub-Inspector Suresh Bhagat (PW14) are the witnesses who investigated the offence in question in parts separately. S.K. Sahu (PW15),

is the witness who prepared the spot-map (Ex.P42).,

On minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that except the statements of Jankirao (PW10) and Rakesh (PW8), no statement of any",

eyewitness was recorded by the prosecution. Rakesh has only stated that 5-6 persons had stopped and beat them with lathi, but he could not disclose",

about the identity of the assailants. Jankirao has categorically stated that he was assaulted by the Appellants. FIR (Ex.P28), which was lodged by",

Punnaram, brother of Jankirao immediately after the incident, is a named FIR. Though due to death of Punnaram he has not been examined before the",

Trial Court yet Jankirao has categorically stated that he had been assaulted by all the Appellants. He has remained firm on this point during his cross-,

examination. From the statement of Dr. Lal Mohd. Khan (PW2) and M.L.C. Report (Ex.P3) of injured Jankirao (PW10), it is also clear that Jankirao",

had sustained total 9 injuries on his body. From the admission of Jankirao, it is also clear that no dispute or quarrel had taken place with any of the",

Appellants before the present incident. From the statements of Rakesh (PW8) and Jankirao (PW10), it is also clear that when they were returning, at",

that time, suddenly the assailants, who were the Appellants, assaulted them. As per the statement of Jankirao, he was assaulted by rod, but he could",

not state about the other article from which he was assaulted. As per the opinion of Dr. Lal Mohd. Khan (PW2), the injuries sustained by Jankirao",

could be caused by rod and knife. Though Dr. Lal Mohd. Khan has opined that the injuries of Jankirao were sufficient to cause his death yet which of,

the injuries sustained by him were sufficient to cause his death is not opined by him. As per his statement, injuries No.(i), (v) (vi) and (ix) were not",

sufficient to cause death. He has stated that he could give his opinion regarding rest of the injuries only after examination of x-ray report, but no x-ray",

report is proved by the prosecution. In these circumstances, it is not established that any of the injuries sustained by Jankirao was grievous in nature or",

sufficient to cause his death. From the evidence available on record, it is also clear that there was no previous enmity between the Appellants and the",

injured. The incident took place suddenly in the night. As stated by Jankirao (PW10), the weapon, which was used in the assault, was a rod. Though",

injuries No.(ii), (iii), (iv) and (vii) sustained by Jankirao were caused on his head, but all the injuries were simple in nature. In these circumstances, a",

suspicion raises whether the Appellants intended to commit murder and thus made the attempt. In my view, the Appellants can be attributed to only",

knowledge that by inflicting such injuries, the Appellants were likely to cause death and attempt to commit such offence which would be punishable",

under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code.,

Therefore, the conviction imposed upon the Appellants under Section 307 of the IPC in the alternative under Section 307/149 of the IPC is set",

aside and in place thereof they are convicted under Section 308/149 of the IPC. The conviction imposed upon them under Sections 147, 148, 341 of",

the IPC is affirmed.,

So far as sentence part is concerned, the Appellants are facing the lis since 1999, i.e., for about 19 years. They have no known criminal",

antecedent. Appellants Kalwant Singh, Raju Yadav, Vimal",

Kumar have already undergone about 5 months and Appellants Jogeshwar, Vijay and Premdas have already undergone about 11 months. Taking into",

consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if for the conviction imposed upon the",

Appellants they are sentenced with the period already undergone by them. Ordered accordingly. The sentence of fine imposed upon them is affirmed.,

In the result, the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated above.",

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,