Noor Mohammad And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The applicants have filed this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment

dated 27.6.2019 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No.33/2019 whereby affirming the Judgment dated

8.2.2019 passed by the Court of JMFC, Sagar in RCT No.3622/2013 thereby convicting each applicant for offence punishable under Sections 323/34

I.P.C. (two count) and sentence to undergo R.I. for 6 months and fine in sum of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation and under Section 325/34

sentence to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine in sum of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation.

The case of the prosecution against the applicants before the trial Court, in short, is that each applicants were in drunken condition and passing in

front the house of injured Mohd Sadiq (PW-3) and Mohd Shamsher (PW-4). On account of previous rivalry, the applicants started abusing pertains to

mother and sister of the injured. When both the injured stopped abusing filthy words, applicant No.1 Noor Mohammed inflicted injuries on Sadiq by

sharp knife, applicant No.2 Mohammed Zahur @ Lalu assaulted on Shadiq by means of iron rod and applicant No.3 Rovi @ Nurul Hasan assaulted by

kick and fist. When brother of injured Shamsher came to save Sadiq, all applicants beat him. He also received injuries. In the incident Shazadi (PW-4)

also received injury. The injured went to lodge the report in the police station Gopalganj, district Sagar, sent for medical examination. Dr. A.K. Jain

(PW-1) examined both the injured and found a lacerated wound in the left hand and one lacerated wound on the head of the injured Shamsher and one

lacerated wound was found in the left thigh of Sadiq. There was a swelling on the left thigh of the Injured. He was sent for further treatment. M.L.C.

report of Shamsher is Ex.P-1 and M.L.C. report of Sadiq is Ex.P-4. Dr. Sudhir Jain (PW-9) treated Mohd Sadiq and found fracture of Femur Bone of

left thigh. X-ray report is Ex.P-15. Ram Gopal Shukla (PW-8) submitted the charge sheet before the Court of J.M.F.C.

Trail Court framed the charges against each applicants. Each applicants abjured their guilt. After conclusion of the trial, trial Court delivered a

judgment on 8.2.2019 acquitted each applicants for the offence under Sections 294, 506(II) and 324 (two counts) of the I.P.C, however, convicted

each applicants for offence punishable under Sections 323/34 (two counts) and 325/34 of the I.P.C. and passed sentence as mentioned above.

Applicants being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence filed an appeal registered as a Criminal Appeal No.33/2019 before Court of Fourth

Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar. After hearing both the parties, the appellate Court delivered a judgment on 27.6.2019 while affirming the conviction

and sentence and dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants.

Being aggrieved by that sentence and conviction, each applicants preferred this criminal revision on the ground that learned both the Courts below

have not appreciated the evidence properly. There are so many contradictions and omissions found in the statement of the witnesses. Witnesses are

unreliable and untrustworthy. Findings of the Courts below are erroneous and contrary to law; therefore, it has been prayed that the conviction and

sentence of each applicants be set aside and also pray to acquit the applicants of the charges.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, supported the prosecution case and submits that the trial Court appreciated the

evidence in proper way and both the Courts below have not committed any illegality, irregularity or perversity in passing the impugned judgment,

therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision.

While invoking the revisional jurisdiction, the Court is having a limited scope of re-appreciation of the evidence because as per Section 393 of the

Cr.P.C. if the conviction and sentence are affirmed by the appellate Court, the same attains finality and if there is a gross error found in the mis-

appreciation of evidence, then this Court can interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the appellate Court.

Perused the statement of injured Sadiq (PW-3). He categorically stated that applicant No.1 Noor Mohammed inflicted injuries by knife in his leg

and on the same place, applicant No.2 Mohd Zahur @ Lallu inflicted injuries by Rod, then this injured fell down and become unconscious. This witness

further stated that when his younger brother came on spot to save him, each applicants also inflicted injuries on him. The leg of this witness become

fractured. In his cross examination he stated that report has been lodged by his mother and again reiterated in para 4 that applicant No.1 Noor

Mohammed inflicted injuries by knife and applicant No.2 Mohd Zahur @ Lallu inflicted injuries by Rod and applicant No.3 Rovi @ Nurul Hasan

scuffled with him.

Another injured Mohd Shamsher (PW-5) also supported the statement of Sadiq (PW-3) and stated that applicants were beating his brother Sadiq.

This witness categorically stated that applicant No.1 Noor Mohammed inflicted injuries by knife and applicant No.2 Mohd Zahur @ Lallu by rod. He

further stated that applicant No.3 Rovi @ Nurul Hasan inflicted injuries on him or his brother.

Eye witness Zohara Bee (PW-2) also stated that applicant Noor Mohammed inflicted injuries on Sadiq by “Farsa†(it is a cutting weapon) and

cut the leg of Sadiq and applicants Rovi @ Nurul Hasan and Mohd Zahur @ Lallu inflicted injuries by knife on Shamsher. This witness categorically

stated that Saheed and Nassu are also injured. This witness lodged a report (Ex-P-7) in police station Gopalganj and thereafter both the injured shifted

to the hospital. This witness categorically stated that at the time of the incident, she was sitting outside her house and she is an eye witness.

Smt. Shazadi (PW-4) has categorically stated in her statement in para No.7 that her mother-in-law Zohara Bee came on the spot after marpeet

and further stated that when applicants fled away from the spot, then her mother-in-law came on the spot. Being a mother Smt. Zohara Bee (PW-2)

exaggerated her statement and she shown herself as an eye witness but it is contradicted by Smt. Shazadi (PW-4) who is wife of injured Mohd Sadiq.

Zohara Bee (PW-2) is not a wholly reliable witness.

Smt Shazadi (PW-4) also deposed before the trial Court as an eye witness and stated that applicant No.1 Noor Mohammed inflicted injuries on

thigh of her husband Mohd Sadiq by means of a “Bakka†(it is a cutting instrument) and applicant No.2 Mohd Zahur @ Lalu inflicted injuries by

rod. She did not narrate the name of applicant No.3 Rovi @ Nurul Hasan.

Independent witness PW-6 Tabassum not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. Mohd Rashid (PW-7) also not supported the

prosecution case and turned hostile. Both the witnesses, in their whole statements, not supported the prosecution case and not supported the story

uttered by the above mentioned witnesses.

There is no doubt that both Sadiq and Shamsher received the injuries and femur bone of Sadiq got fractured. No doubt Zohara Bee (PW-2) and

Shazadi (PW-4) are interested and related witnesses. One witness stated that applicant No.1 Noor Mohammed inflicted injuries by “Farsa†and

Shazadi (PW-4) stated that applicant No.1 Noor Mohammed inflicted injuries by “Bakkaâ€. Both weapons are different and both injured stated

that the injuries inflicted on them by means of knife. No doubt there are contradictions in the statement of witnesses to the effect that by what weapon

applicant No.1 Noor Mohammed inflicted injuries on the person of Sadiq and Shamsher. As per the M.L.C. report (Ex. P-4 and P-5), Sadiq received

only one injury on the left thigh and femur bone which got fractured. No doubt this injury could be inflicted by hard and blunt object. Doctor stated that

all injuries were found on both victims were lacerated wounds and may be inflicted by hard and blunt object.

Whether the contradictions, omissions and exaggerations created a strong doubt? This court find that in the statement of witnesses, this fact has

came in the statement that applicant No.1 Noor Mohammed also reported the matter before the police station Gopalganj. He first lodged an FIR,

thereafter, Zohra Bee lodged an FIR. There was a free fight between the parties and in that free fight Sadiq received grievous injuries and Shamsher

received simple injuries. There are some contradictions and omissions but the name of the applicants mentioned in the FIR lodged without delay and

injuries supported by the M.L.C. report, therefore, this fact is sufficient to conclude that each applicants with a common intention inflicted injuries on

the person of both the injured and Sadiq received grievous injuries.

This Court while exercising its power in revisional jurisdiction has not found any gross mis-appreciation of the evidence in convicting the applicants

for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 of the I.P.C. This Court can upheld the conviction. So far as the sentence part is

concerned, the learned trial Court convicted each of the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 on two counts but have sentenced

them for only one count, however, the State has not preferred any appeal against the sentence for other count.

This revision has been filed by the applicants against conviction and sentence. On perusal of the statement of witnesses it reveals that there was

free fight between injured and applicants. Applicants also lodged a complaint against both the injured. Considering this fact, this Court found that the

sentence imposed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court somewhat harsh. There are no criminal antecedents against the applicants. All are

first offenders. On the point of sentence, this revision is partly allowed. The sentence of imprisonment imposed against applicants for the offence

under Section 323/34 of the I.P.C. is hereby upheld and punishment of imprisonment is hereby set aside. The fine amount increased Rs.500/- to

Rs.1000/- with same default stipulation as imposed by the trial Court and conviction under Section 325/34 of the I.P.C. is hereby upheld and sentence

of imprisonment for one year R.I. imposed in connection with the offence under Sections 325/34 of the I.P.C. is hereby reduced to three months R.I.

and fine amount Rs.500/- increased to the fine amount Rs.1000/-with same default stipulation. After depositing in the fine amount Rs.2000/- to be

given as a compensation to injured Sadiq and Rs.1000/- to the injured Shamsher.

With the aforesaid modification, this revision stands disposed of.