Prakash vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7498 MP

        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT

                                   AT JABALPUR



CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.           2679 of 2015
APPELLANTS                    PRAKASH

                                      VS.

                              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Bench Constituted             Single Bench
Judgment delivered By         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
Whether       approved   for No.
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For appellant : Shri M.P. Tripathi, Advocate.

                              For Respondent : Shri Dilip Parihar, Panel Lawyer.

Law laid down Significant paragraph number

(J U D G M E N T) 17/11/2021

Appellant has filed this appeal challenging judgement dated 15.09.2015

passed by learned Additional Judge to the Court First Additional Sessions

Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa (MP), in Sessions Trial No. 06/2014. Learned

Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 10 years under Section 307 of Indian Penal

Code and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section

25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act. A fine Rs. 500/- was imposed upon the appellant

for offence punishable under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code. Fine of Rs.

5000/- and Rs.500/- was also imposed upon appellant for commission of

offence under Sections 307 of IPC and Section 25(1B)(b) of Arms Act

respectively.

2. According to prosecution story, on 03.10.2013, victim Jyoti was

going on her TVS luna bearing Registration No. MP-12-MB-1340. On Mata

Chowk, Khandwa she was stopped from proceeding further by appellant.

Appellant drew a long knife from his scooter bearing registration No. MP-

01-E-6369 and assaulted the victim repeatedly. Victim was immediately

taken on 108 Ambulance to hospital where she was treated and thereafter,

she was referred to M.Y. Hospital. Dehati Nalish was registered and

investigation of the case was done. Appellant was arrested. Spot map was

prepared and seizure of knife was done from appellant. Scooter belonging to

appellant was also seized.

3. Police after completion of investigation filed final charge-sheet.

Appellant pleaded not guilty and preferred trial. Trial Court famed charges

under Sections 341 and 307 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms

Act.

4. Prosecution, to prove its case, examined PW-1 Jyoti Ranbhoure, PW-

2 Narayan, PW-3 Anand Rathore, PW-4 Dr. Dharmendra Dhanware, PW-5

Vicky Sarwan, PW-6 Dr. Sushant Tyagi, PW-7 Teekaram Kurmi, PW-8

Komal Singh, PW-9 Dr. J.r. Verma and PW-10 Dr. Arun Guru. Appellant

examined defence witnesses DW-1 D.S. Yadav and DW-2 Ashok Kumar

Soni and relied on document Ex.D1, Ex.D2 (copy of judgment in criminal

case No. 1998/2012 in which appellant was acquitted), Ex.D3 and Ex.D4

(entries of registered of loan document of Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti

Maryadit). Learned trial Court after considering the evidence available on

record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.

5. Counsel appearing for the appellant has challenged impugned

judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that there is major

contradictions in statement of witnesses namely PW-1 Jyoti Ranbhoure,

PW-7 Vicky Sarawn, PW-3 Anand Rathore and PW-2 Narayan. It was

submitted by him that PW-1 was living separately from appellant Prakash

since 2011 and litigation was pending between them. She had falsely

implicated the appellant. It was further submitted that FIR was antedated

and doctor has not mentioned the age (time) of injuries while examining the

victim. It is submitted that no offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal

Code is made out against the appellant. Prosecution has failed to prove that

injuries were dangerous to life. It is further submitted that initial

information, which was lodged by Ex.P1, it was not mentioned who brought

victim Jyoti to hospital. On basis of aforesaid arguments, counsel for the

appellant submitted that appellant is falsely being implicated in the case due

to enmity with complainant. Appellant and complainant are husband and

wife. She was attacked by some other person, but, appellant was falsely

implicated in the case. Placing reliance on deposition of PW-4 Dr.

Dharmendra Dhanware, arguments were advanced that doctor has not

mentioned the time when injuries were caused. In fact, injuries were caused

by some other persons earlier but, appellant was implicated as an

afterthought. It is submitted that conviction has been made considering the

deposition of complainant victim Jyoti and Investigating Officer PW-7. No

independent witness was examined by the prosecution. On basis of aforesaid

facts and circumstances of the case, counsel for the appellant submitted that

impugned judgment of conviction and sentence may be quashed and

appellant be acquitted from aforesaid charges.

6. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submitted that trial

Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record. Doctors have stated

that injuries caused were grievous and dangerous to life. Appellant has been

unequivocally named as an assailant by injured complainant Jyoti. It is

submitted that Investigating Officer has also supported the prosecution

version. No error has been committed by the trial Court in convicting the

appellant.

7. Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as respondent/State.

8. PW-4 Dr. Dharmendra Dhanware has stated that complainant had

suffered 6 injuries. General condition of patient was very poor. Injuries were

caused by hard and sharp object. It was also stated by him that injuries were

recently caused to the victim and there was bleeding from the wounds and

injuries were dangerous to life and grievous in nature. PW-6 Dr. Sushant

Tyagi and PW-9 Dr. J.R. Verma had also deposed about the injuries. On

going through their deposition, it is found that injuries were dangerous to

life and were caused on vital part of the body. Respiratory tract of victim

was cut and she was treated and operated upon. In view of same, there is no

error in the finding of the trial Court that injuries suffered by the victim

were dangerous to life.

9. Counsel appearing for the appellant had argued that there is major

contradictions in the version of prosecution witnesses and therefore, trial

Court had committed an error in believing the prosecution story. Counsel

appearing for the appellant has not pointed out contradictions and omissions

in the deposition of said witnesses. Witnesses of arrest memo, seizure and

recovery have turned hostile but they have admitted their signatures on the

memorandum. Further Investigating Officer has also supported the

prosecution story. Victim was an injured witness and she had clearly stated

that it was appellant who had assaulted her with a knife. Who had assaulted

the victim is not mentioned in document Ex.P1, which is information given

in the hospital by person who had brought the victim there. On perusing

evidence of PW1, it is found that information to Medical Officer on

03.08.2013 was given on 18:26 PM and in FIR, time of FIR has been

mentioned as 18:00 PM. Learned trial Court had disbelieved the defence of

appellant on the ground that there is possibility that time in watch of

Teekaram Kurimi, who took Dehati Nalish and time in watch of person who

gave information to doctor and time in watch of Medical Officer may differ

by 5-10 minutes. This different time is mentioned on aforesaid documents

and said difference will not make prosecution version antedated. Only minor

difference of time on Ex.P-1 and Dehati Nilish may occur due to various

reasons like forgetfulness, difference in timing in watches, habit of not to be

accurate and so on and so forth, but, minor difference is not fatal to prove

entire story to make FIR antedated.

10. On going through evidence of PW-7 Teekaram Kurmi, who is

Investigating Officer, it is found that he had denied that Jyoti alongwith her

brother Vijay had implicated the appellant. It is submitted that Jyoti was not

in a condition to speak. From said deposition, it is clear that condition of

Jyoti was serious and she was unable to speak and was under treatment.

Therefore, there is no basis to show that victim Jyoti conspired with Vijay

and as an afterthought, implicated the appellant. On the contrary, she had

given a written complaint, wherein she had stated that it was Prakash who

had assaulted her. In her deposition, she had unequivocally stated that

Prakash assaulted her and he wanted to kill her. In these circumstances, only

because there is difference of few minutes in time of incident mentioned in

Dehati Nalish and information given to doctor, it cannot be said that FIR is

antedated. Police had recovered blood stained knife from accused and

human blood was found on it. Victim has also made unequivocal and clear

allegation against the appellant and had remained firm in her examination-

in-chief and cross-examination. Witnesses PW-2 Narayan and PW-3 Anand

Rathore had turned hostile, but admitted their signatures on documents.

They were witnesses of seizure of blood stained soil, arrest memo, recovery

memo and memorandum. PW-7 Teekaram Kurmi had supported the

recovery. Only because some prosecution witnesses did not support the

prosecution case, same is not enough for discrediting the prosecution case.

The appellant was unable to make out a case that FIR was antedated and he

was falsely implicated in the case.

11. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, trial

Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 341

and 307 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act.

Therefore, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE vkt Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2021.11.18 17:37:33 +05'30'