Mohan and Others vs State of M.P.

P.K. Jaiswal, J.—Both these appeals are arising out of order of conviction dated 26/02/1998 passed by Sessions Judge, Ratlam in S.T. No. 120/97 whereby learned trial Court convicted the appellants/accused u/s 325/ 34 of IPC and to undergo sentence of 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 200/-and in default of payment of fine, one month R.I. to each of them and also convicted them u/s 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, sentenced to one month''s RI. In Cri. A. No. 420/1998, appellants are aggrieved by their conviction u/s 325/ 34 of IPC by which they have been convicted for 3 years RI with fine of Rs. 200/-.

Cri. A. No. 738/1998 has been filed by the State u/s 377 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of jail sentence.

Both the aforesaid appeals are arising of incident dated 30/04/1996 and, therefore, they were heard together and are decided by this common order.

As per prosecution story, on 30/04/1996 at about 9:00 PM Nandu was going to his well in village Morwani. Jagdish was on the well. In the enroute, Shankar, Shantilal, Narayan and Mohan armed with wood stopped him and inflicted multiple injuries to him. Jagdish saw this and rushed to intervene; then Shantilal also beaten him by a wood on his head. On hearing the shriek of Jagdish, his brother Anandilal and mother Lilabai rushed to the spot and tried to save and intervene, then the accused also beaten them and escaped away. Jagdish, Anandilal and Lilabai carried Nandu to the Police Station Manak Chowk, Ratlam and FIR was lodged by him vide Ex- P/11. The police initially registered offence under Sections 341, 294 and 323 of IPC.

Injured Smt Lilabai (PW7), Jagdish (PW4) and Anandilal (PW6) were sent to hospital for their medical examination. Ex-P/5, P/6 and P/7 are their MLC reports.

Injured Nandu was also admitted to the hospital. Ex-P/1 to P/3 is his M.L.C. Report. On 14/05/1996, injured Nandu was discharged from the hospital. Subsequently he was again admitted in the hospital on 16/06/1996 and he expired on the same day i.e. on 16/06/1996. After his death, police converted it under Sections 302, 341, 294, 323, 325 and 506 of IPC.

As per statement of Dr. Manoj Solanki (PW1), injuries of Lilabai (P W7), Jagdish (PW4) and Anandilal (PW6) were simple in nature. The learned trial Court considered these facts in para 8, 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment and gave a finding that injuries of Lilabai (PW7), Jagdish (PW4) and Anandilal (PW6) is simple in nature and convicted the appellants u/s 323/ 34 of IPC and sentenced them to one-one month RI to each of them for causing injuries to them.

In respect of deceased Nandu, Dr. Manoj Solanki (PW1) Medical Officer of District Hospital, Ratlam has opined that all the three injuries caused by him are by hard and blunt object. Injury No. 3 was simple in nature whereas for injuries No. 1 and 2 he directed for X-ray. Injuries No. 1 and 2 are lacerated wounds 10 x 1 cm. X bone deep and 6 x 1cm. X bone deep respectively over top of the skull and over left side of skull. As per opinion of surgical specialist of City Hospital, Ratlam, the injuries were grievous in nature. As he had sustained head injuries, he remained admitted from 1/05/1996 to 14/05/1996.

PW2, Dr. M.L. Gupta, who gave his opinion (Ex-P/8) on the basis of medical prescriptions, M.L.C. Report, X-ray report and Postmortem report has deposed that injury of skull was grievous in nature but there was no internal bleeding.

PW3, Dr. V.V. Purohit, Assistant Surgeon of Civil Hospital, Ratlam and who had conducted the Autopsy of deceased Nandu has deposed that as per postmortem report (Ex-P/9), there was a fracture of frontal bone and parietal bone. He has further admitted that it is not possible to give any opinion or reason regarding cause of death of deceased. The Viscera was sent for chemical examination. In his Court statement he has further deposed that death was due to head injury.

PW10, Dr. C.S. Jain, Forensic Expert vide Ex-P/23) has not given any definite opinion about the cause of death of deceased. He has opined that 76% the death was due to injuries sustained by the deceased, but no definite opinion has been given by this witness. This question has been considered by the trial Court and after appreciating the statement of Dr. V.V. Purohit (PW3) and Dr. C.S. Jain (PW 10) gave a finding that in absence of definite opinion about the cause of death of deceased, it cannot be said that deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him but appreciating the statements of injured witnesses which has been medically corroborated came to the conclusion that injuries caused by the present appellants were grievous in nature and convicted them u/s 325 read with Section 34 of IPC.

From perusal of the evidence of Dr. Manoj Solanki (PW1), Dr. M.L. Gupta (PW2), Dr. V.V. Purohit (PW3), Dr. C.S. Jain (PW10), Jagdish(PW4), Anandilal (PW6) and Smt. Lilabai(PW7) referred to above, we are of the opinion that appellants were armed with wood and inflicted injuries to deceased Nandu and injured Smt. Lilabai(PW7), Anandilal(PW) and Jagdish(PW4). The offence of common intention to cause the death of deceased Nandu has not been established by the prosecution nor the same can be gathered from the evidence. The prosecution has also not been able to prove that the injuries caused to deceased Nandu were with the intention to cause his death. Dr. Manoj Solanki(PW1), Dr. M.L. Gupta(PW2), Dr. V.V. Purohit (PW3) and Dr. C.S. Jain (PW10), have not stated that the injuries suffered by deceased Nandu were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death.

The appeal by the State has been filed u/s 377 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellants under Sections 325/ 34 of IPC.

No appeal was filed against the acquittal of accused persons u/s 378 of IPC with prayer to leave and, therefore, the question whether they could be convicted u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code cannot be considered. This position has been conceded by the learned Govt. Advocate and, therefore, he confined his argument only for enhancement of jail sentence of the appellants and submitted that as per Section 325, IPC they could have sentenced for a period of 5-7 years instead of 3 years and submitted that looking to the nature of injuries caused on parietal region of the deceased they could have awarded minimum sentence of 5 to 7 years. The learned trial Court committed an error in awarding sentence only for a period of 3 years and prayed for enhancement of their jail sentence.

On the other hand, Shri R.K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent/accused in Cri. A. No. 738/1998 has submitted that on the basis of eye-witnesses account and medical evidence, the appellants have been convicted under sections 325 of the Penal Code and sentenced them for a period of three years with fine of Rs. 200/- and since the head injury was there and submitted that the question of enhancement of sentence would not arise and prayed for dismissal of the State appeal.

On due consideration of the facts that appellants were armed with wood and inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased and as per opinion of the doctors, the deceased sustained head injuries which was grievous in nature, a reading of the injuries would indicate that though the general condition of the victim was not very bad and there was no categorical statement in the medical certificate and opinion given by the doctors that injuries of the deceased were dangerous to life. Furthermore, the deceased was admitted in the hospital for a period from 1/05/1996 to 14/05/1996 and, thereafter, he was discharged, it means that at the time of discharge, his injuries were not dangerous to life and, thereafter, on 16/06/1996, he was again admitted in the hospital and on the same day he died. As per postmortem report (Ex-P/9), no opinion has been given by the doctor that the death was homicidal in nature or due to grievous injuries sustained by the deceased, however, the case of the appellants would fall u/s 325 of IPC because of the statements of injured witnesses that the deceased had remained in hospital for 15 days due to the injuries caused to him, this made out a case of grievous hurt.

The sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper. No case for interference with the said sentence or its enhancement is made out. The Court below appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and sentenced them for a period of three years RI with fine. It is not a grievance of the State that certain points were argued but not considered by the trial Court.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the judgment of the trial Court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible, hence calls for no interference.

The appellants are on bail. Their bail bond and surety bond shall stand cancelled. Appellants shall surrender before the trial Court to undergo the remaining part of the sentence. Both the appeals filed by the appellants and State has no merit and are, accordingly, dismissed.