Prahlad Singh vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 9107 MP

                                                              Cr.A. No.2493/1997
                                                 1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
                     JABALPUR

    BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL 2493/1997

         Between:-

         PRAHLAD SINGH
                                                                  ....APPELLANT

         (By Shri Jayant Prakash Patel, Advocate)

         AND

         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                                           .......RESPONDENTS
         (By Ms. Aishwarya Singh, Panel Lawyer )



         Arguments heard on              : 23.02.2022
         Order delivered on                08.07.2022

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence dated 25.11.1997 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore (M.P.) in S.T. No. 60/1996, whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the Cr.A. No.2493/1997

offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, one year further rigorous imprisonment.

2. As per prosecution, Prem Singh (victim) lodged a complaint that he had gone to village Siradhi by his tractor to bring his sister. The accused persons also travelled with him. He returned at 2.30 P.M. He and Yashwant Singh went to relieve themselves. When they came back, Sardar Singh and Prahlad Singh suddenly started a quarrel and an altercation ensued between them. Yashwant Singh withheld Sardar Singh, but Prahald Singh attacked the victim/complainant with a knife and caused injury below his neck.

3. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was lodged and after being given primary treatment at Primary hospital Shyampur, victim was referred to Hameedia Hospital, Bhopal, where Dr. Kulwant Singh (P.W.-14) examined him and found an incised wound 15 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm deep on below the left side of collar bone near chest. The injury was deep upto lung cavity. As per Dr. Kulwant Singh (P.W.-14), this injury was grievous in nature and dangerous to life. He further opined that the injury may be caused by seized knife.

Cr.A. No.2493/1997

4. The prosecution in order to bring home charges, examined 14 witnesses. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.

5. The learned trial Court, though acquitted Sardar Singh, however convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforestated.

6. The learned trial Judge has mainly relied on the statement of victim P.W.-1 Prem Singh and P.W.-14 Dr. Kulwant Singh.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no previous history or enmity between the parties. The occurrence was as a result of sudden quarrel, which flared up due to hot talks. There was no intention or knowledge to cause death as after first injury, the appellant has not inflicted any other blow.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the judgment of trial Court.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Cr.A. No.2493/1997

10. P.W.-1 Prem Singh in his testimony has admitted that the incident occurred suddenly on account of an altercation between the parties.

11. In view of the statement of P.W.-1 Prem Singh and P.W.-6 Yashwant Singh, it appears that the incident happened suddenly on account of an altercation and brawl between P.W.-1 Prem Singh and the appellant. Only a single injury was inflicted. Though according to P.W.-14 Dr. Kulwant Singh, it was grievous in nature and may have been caused by the seized knife. However, it is also evident from testimony of P.W.-1 Prem Singh that appellant was his friend and had gone with him to bring his sister. There was no motive nor any intention to commit murder as the appellant after injuring the victim does not dealt a second below. The fight it seems was a sudden flare resulting in an accidental injury to P.W.-1 Prem Singh.

12. In the case of Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh and others (1988) 4 SCC 551, the Apex Court has observed that where the fight is accidental owing to a sudden quarrel, the conviction under Section 307 of I.P.C is generally not called for and refused to disturb the acquittal of accused under Section 307 of I.P.C.. The Apex Court has held thus :-

Cr.A. No.2493/1997

7. On the first question as to acquittal of the accused under Section 3O7/149 IPC, some significant aspects may be borne in mind. Under Section 307 IPC what the Court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge or the accused must be such as is necessary constitute' murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". Under Section 307 intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used. motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration it, determine the intention. In this case, two parties in the course of a fight inflicted on each other injuries both serious and minor. The accused though armed with ballam never used the sharp edge of it. They used only the blunt side of it despite they being attacked by the other side. They suffered injuries but not provoked or tempted to use the cutting edge of the weapon. It is very very significant. It seems to us that they had no intention to commit murder. They had no motive either. The fight as the High Court has observed, might have been a sudden flare up. Where the fight is accidental owing to a sudden quarrel, the conviction under Section 307 is generally not called for. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb the acquittal of accused under under Section 307 PC.

13. In the present case, as observed herein above, there seems to be no intention on the part of appellant to commit murder. The incident is of the year 1996. Furthermore, the appellant and complainant were friends and incident happened suddenly on account of some altercation. There is no previous Cr.A. No.2493/1997

history or enmity between the parties. The appellant has suffered six months of jail sentence and thereafter his sentence was suspended and he was released on bail vide order dated 04.05.1998. Under the facats and circumstances, the conviction of the appellant is upheld, however, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, to meet the ends of justice, the compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, that is to be deposited within two months failing which the appellant shall suffer the jail sentence. After recovery of the fine amount, Rs.5,000/- be paid as compensation to the complainant/victim.

14. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stands discharged.

(Nandita Dubey) Judge SMT. GEETHA NAIR 08/07/2022 gn 2022.07.08 15:58:59 +05'30'