Sampat Bai And Another vs State Of M.P

Anjuli Palo, J

This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.8.1998 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Session Trial No. 18/1996 whereby appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 326/34 of the IPC and appellant No. 2 has been convicted under Section 326 of the IPC and both of them have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer further R.I. for 1 year each.

As per the case of the prosecution, on 12.11.1995 at about 9.10 AM, one Babulal lodged report at Police Station, Doraha, District Sehore that when his brother Narayan Singh was sitting in the house of Suraj then appellant No. 2 Ramesh slapped his child, namely Hukum. The deceased objected to the same, At that juncture, appellant No. 1 Sampat Bai (mother of appellant No. 2 Ramesh) came there and handed-over 'Karpa' to appellant No. 2 Ramesh and exhorted him to kill Narayan Singh. Appellant No. 2 Ramesh gave 'Karpa' blow on the thigh of Narayan Singh as a result of which he sustained fatal injury and main artery of his thigh got cut. Narayan Singh was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. The police registered offence under Section 302 and 302/34 of the IPC against the appellants. After due investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellants.

Learned trial Court framed the charges under Section 302 and 302/34 of the IPC against the appellants and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record passed impugned judgment holding that offence under Section 302 and 302/34 of the IPC is not made out against the appellants. Trial Court found that appellant No. 2 Ramesh caused grievous and fatal injury on the thigh of the deceased with sharp cutting object as a result of which main artery of his thigh got cut and in the aforesaid act of appellant No. 2, appellant No. 1 Sampat Bai had actively participated as she gave the weapon in question (Karpa) to appellant No. 2 Ramesh. Trial Court also observed that since the appellants had no intention to kill the deceased, therefore, no case under Section 302 and 302/34 of the IPC is made out against the appellants. However, the trial Court found appellant No. 1 guilty of offence under Section 326/34 of the IPC and appellant No. 2 under Section 326 of the IPC and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above.

The appellants challenged the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court mainly on the grounds that appellant No. 2 assaulted deceased while exercising his right of private defence. Trial Court erred in observing that appellant No. 1 handed-over 'Karpa' and exhorted appellant No. 2 to cause injury to deceased. During the incident, appellant No. 2 also sustained injuries. The prosecution has not given any explanation for the injury received by appellant No. 2. The evidence of Gangaram (PW-1) and Mamta Bai (PW-2) could not have been placed reliance upon and could not have been formed basis for conviction as they are close relatives of deceased Narayan Singh. The deceased had also caused injury by giving stick blows on the vital part of appellant No. 2, as is evident from statements of Kailash Chand (PW-6) and Dr. M.M. Sharma (PW-7). The deceased sustained only single injury, therefore, it be inferred that appellants had only intention to cause simple injury and hence, at the best it would be an offence under Section 324 of the IPC.

Learned Panel Lawyer has supported the findings recorded by the trial Court and submitted that no interference is called for in this appeal. This appeal is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the evidence available on record including the impugned judgment. It is not in dispute that appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 are mother and son. They were present at the time of the incident. The allegation against appellant No. 1 Sampat Bai is that she provided weapon (Karpa) to appellant No. 2, which he used to cause injury to deceased Narayan Singh but in this regard there are so many contradictions in the testimony of eye witnesses. Learned trial Court mainly treated one Mamta Bai (PW-2), daughter of the deceased, as eye witness. She has stated that appellant No. 2 provoked her son to kill the deceased and gave Karpa to him. In the cross-examination, she has stated that the deceased, just before his death, told her and to some other persons that appellant No. 1 Sampat Bai provided Karpa to appellant No. 2 Ramesh and then appellant No.2 Ramesh gave blow to him. The statement of Mamta Bai (PW-2) is not reliable because prior to the incident deceased Narayan Singh was at his own house where Mamta Singh (PW-2) was also present. There was no possibility that Narayan Singh had seen Sampat Bai at his own house or outside his house. Similar is the position with Mambai Bai (PW-2), therefore, it appears that appellant No. 1 Sampat Bai has been falsely implicated with her son appellant No. 2.

Some other witnesses have also stated that just before his death, Narayan Singh narrated the name of Sampat Bai that she gave weapon to her son to kill him but Jaswant Singh (PW-3) in his startement has stated that he heard that, Sampat Bai was making hue and cry and when he went to her house she stated that Ramesh and Narayan Singh were quarreling. Sampat Bai told him to go and see, when he went at the house of Suraj Singh, he saw that Narayan Singh was lying down at the house of Suraj Singh in injured condition. It is important to mention here that Sampat Bai was not present at the spot. In para-3 of his examination in chief he has specifically stated that in front of him, Sampat Bai told nothing to her. In cross-examination Para-4, he stated the same thing. It is also pertinent to mention here that appellant No. 2 Ramesh also received injuries on his head, which has been corroborated by Dr. M.M. Sharma (PW-7), therefore, statements of some witnesses are doubtful that they saw that appellant No. 1 provided Karpa to Ramesh and Narayan Singh stated against her to them. In the opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against appellant No. 1 beyond any reasonable doubt, therefore, in my considered opinion, learned trial Court has committed error in convicting appellant No. 1 under Section 326/34 of the IPC.

However, there are sufficient evidence against appellant No. 2 Ramesh that, he caused fatal injuries to the deceased by means of Karpa, which was a sharp cutting weapon. Dr. B.K. Choudhary (PW-15) who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, found penetrating wound on left thigh of the size 2½ x 2½ x 4 inches by which he found artery was cut. Although, the aforesaid injury caused to deceased Narayan Singh was fatal and he died on the same day of the incident, however, learned trial Court has found that appellant No. 2 had no intention to caue death of the deceased. Looking to the nature and size of the injuries and other facts and circumstancesd of the case, learned trial Court convicted appellant No. 2 Ramesh under Section 326 of the IPC. In my considered opinion, the State has not challenged the above findings of the trial Court, therefore, no interference is required in the same.

In view of the aforesaid, appeal in respect of appellant No. 1 Sampat Bai is allowed. The conviction of appellant No. 1 recorded by learned trial Court under Section 326/34 of the IPC is hereby set aside. She is acquitted to the charge under Section 326/34 of the IPC. Appellant No. 1 is on bail. Her bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.

Appeal in respect of appellant No. 2 is hereby dismissed.

The conviction and sentenced of appellant No. 2 recorded by the trial Court under Section 326 of the IPC is hereby affirmed. The appellant is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining part of his jail sentence.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court for information and necessary action.