Kanchan Singh And Anr. vs The State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 6964 MP

                                                                                              1

                       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
                                                                             (Single Bench)
                                                       Criminal Appeal No. 2423/1998
                                                               Kanchan Singh & Another
                                                                                          Vs.
                                                            The State of Madhya Pradesh
Appearance:
Shri Amit Pandey, Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Shri Nagendra Solanki, Panel Lawyer for the respondent State.
CORAM                                                                           Hon'ble Shri Justice Virender Singh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                         JUDGMENT

(28.10.2021)

The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order

dated 29/09/1998 passed by Xth Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial

No.38/1998, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 323

I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- with

default stipulation.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10/8/1997 at about 7 'O'clock in

the morning complainant Achal Singh had gone to refund Rs.200/- borrowed

by him to appellant Kanchan Singh. Appellant Kanchan Singh asked him to

pay the interest also, on this complainant Achal Singh replied that his uncle

Prabhulal will pay the interest. Annoyed by this, Kanchan Singh started

abusing the complainant, he also started beating him by a stick. Complainant

Achal Singh sustained injuries on his head and leg. His uncle Prabhulal

intervened to rescue him, but with intent to kill him both the appellants

alongwith co-accused Mardan Singh started beating him by sticks. Prabhulal

sustained injuries on his head and fell down on the ground. Harisingh and

Udham Singh intervened and rescued them. Complainant Achal Singh an

Prabhulal approached the police and lodged the FIR Ex.P-1. They were sent

for medical examination to Community Health Center, Berasiya, where Doctor

B.K. Jain (P.W-8) examined them and found several simple injuries caused to

both of them. Dr. Jain submitted his report Ex.P-8 & P-9. He also referred

injured Prabhulal for X-ray examination to Hamidiya Hospital Bhopal. Dr.

Ravi Acharya (P.W-6) examined injuries of Prabhulal and opined that his injury

of right palm was grievous in nature and other injuries were simple in nature.

He submitted his report Ex.P-4. Head Constable Banwarilal (P.W-7)

investigated the case, arrested the accused, prepared the sport map, seized the

sticks from possession of appellants and co-accused Mardan Singh and after

completing investigation filed the charge-sheet under Section 307 of IPC.

3. Appellants were charged under Section 307 of IPC. They abjured their

guilt and pleaded for trial.

4. After the trial co-accused Mardan Singh has been acquitted by the trial

Court. The trial Court further has not found proved the charge under Section

307 of IPC, rather it found proved the charge under Section 323 of IPC and

sentenced the appellants as stated in the last foregoing para.

5. Both the appellants have preferred this appeal on several grounds, but in

the argument learned counsel representing them submitted that he does not

want to press the appeal on merit, his limited prayer is that the incident had

taken place on a petty issue of payment of interest of principal amount of

Rs.200/-only. The heated argument between the appellant Kanchan Singh and

complainant Achal Singh turned into the incident. Nothing serious had

happened there except some scrimmage between both of them. They both

approached the police and lodged the FIR. Cross case has also been registered

against complainant Achal Singh and they have also been tried under Section

451, 323, 294 & 34 of the IPC. Both the parties belong to the same village and

are neighbours earlier they were enjoying good relations, but at an unfortunate

time, there relations turned hostile and alleged incident had taken place. The

appellants have no criminal antecedents. Injuries caused to the complainant

and other injured were not very serious in nature. The trial Court itself has

found that the injuries were simple in nature. No deadly weapon has been used

in the indent. The intention of the appellant was never to kill the injured. It

was a simple dispute between both the parties. No other criminal case, except

the present one, has ever been registered against the appellants since last 24

years. The appellants are facing Court proceeding, they have co-operated with

the investigation and trial and still marking their presence regularly. No

purpose would be served by sending them to jail after lapse of long period of

24 years. The fine imposed by the trial Court has already been deposited by the

appellants, therefore, the jail sentence of appellants may be reduced to the

period already undergone by them.

6. Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer referring to the statement of

the injured and other witnesses examined by the prosecution. He supported the

conviction and sentence of the appellants.

7. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone

through the record.

8. The incident of this case had taken place on 10.8.1997. The issue between

the parties was very small and the registration of cross-case shows that there

was some scuffle between the parties, which had gone serious. No deadly

weapon has been used in the incident and there was no premeditation, intention

or preparation of the crime. The incident had taken place all of a sudden on a

petty issue. Now both the appellants are senior citizens of 60 plus age and

there is nothing on record to show that any other criminal case has ever been

registered against them in last 24 years. Therefore, I find the prayer of learned

counsel for the appellants to reduce the sentence of the appellants to the period

already undergone appropriate.

9. Having regard to all facts and circumstances of the case in their broad

spectrum, the prayer of the appellants is allowed. The conviction of the

appellants under Section 323 of IPC is confirmed, however, their sentence is

reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial Court

has already been deposited by the appellants.

10. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is partly allowed and

disposed of.

(Virender Singh) Judge rv

REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA 2021.10.29 17:47:46 +05'30'