Dhani Ram @ Chatpat & Ors. vs The State Of M.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 4420 MP

                                                   Cr.A. No. 1060/1998
                                  1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
                    JABALPUR

                              BEFORE

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1060/1998

Between:-

1.    DHANI RAM @ CHATPAT ,
      S/O AMAAN LODHI,
      AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS ,

2.    AMAAN LODHI, S/O KHUDARE LODHI,
      AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

      BOTH OF THEM ARE R/O SUNWAHA,
      THANA- BAXWAHA, DISTT CHHATTARPUR
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                    .....APPELLANTS

      (By Ms. Sushila Paliwal, Advocate as Amicus Curiae )

      AND

      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                                   .....RESPONDENT
      (By Shri Sheetal Tiwari, Panel Lawyer)
                                                   Cr.A. No. 1060/1998
                                   2




       Arguments heard on       : 10.11.2021
       Order delivered on        : 29.03.2022



                           JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence dated 07.04.1998 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No.170/1995, whereby the appellants have been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-I/34 and 325/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 304-Part-I/34 of I.P.C. and Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 325/34 of I.P.C. with default stipulations.

2. As per the prosecution, appellant No.2 had an altercation with Chatra and threw him on the ground. When his son Ghasita came to intervene, appellant No.1 Dhaniram attacked and assaulted him with 'Sabbal' causing grievous injuries on his head, chest and legs. He further hit Chatura on his back with 'Sabbal'. As a result of which, both sustained grievous injuries and fractures. This incident was witnessed by Madan Lodhi, Cr.A. No. 1060/1998

Nanha Lodhi, Lochi Singh, Kalua and Makhan. A report was lodged regarding the incident and the two injured persons were admitted in the hospital, where Chatra succumbed to his injuries after 18 days.

3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The trial Court on the basis of documents on record, framed the charges against the appellants as aforestated, The accused persons abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.

4. The trial Court on the basis of evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforestated.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case. According to all the witnesses, appellant No.2 Amaan only engaged in the verbal altercation and threw the deceased on ground and did not further assault him.

6. As per the postmortem report, deceased Chatra died due to septicemia developed on account of the injuries received by him. His earlier MLC shows that he sustained fracture of ribs and shoulder in the incident. Ghasita has also sustained fracture on 6 th and 8th rib in the incident.

Cr.A. No. 1060/1998

7. P.W. -7 Ghasita (injured) and his son P.W.-3 Makhan, both have stated that when Ghasita tried to intervene and save Chatra, Dhaniram assaulted them with Sabbal.

8. Madan (P.W.-2), Kaluwa (P.W.-3), Lochi (P.W.-8), Ninvai (P.W.-14) are the independent eye witnesses of the incident and according to them the incident occurred on account of covering of the well by Chatra. Though these witnesses have been declared hostile but in their cross-examination, they have admitted that initially a verbal altercation ensued between Amaan and Chatra and Chatra attacked Amaan with lathi. They have also admitted Chatra and Ghasita received grievous injuries and Chatra died due to the injuries.

9. In his dying declaration (Ex. P-23), Chatra had stated that Amaan threw him on the ground and when his son came to save him, Dhaniram attacked him with Sabbal.

10. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, appellant No.2 Amaan has not taken part in the incident after the initial altercation. There is no allegation that appellant Amaan also attacked with lathi or any other weapon, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that appellant Amaan intended to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, he can only be convicted Cr.A. No. 1060/1998

under Section 323 of I.P.C. and not under Section 304 Part-I/34 and 325/34 of I.P.C., therefore, appellant No.2 Amaan is convicted under Section 323 of I.P.C. instead of Section 304 Part - I/34 and 325/34 of I.P.C.

11. However, the conviction and sentence of appellant No.1 Dhaniram is hereby affirmed. Appellant No.1 Dhaniram has already completed his sentence and released from the jail on 22.09.2000.

12. Appellant No.2 Amaan was on bail since 08.09.1998. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal of appellant No.2 is partly allowed. He has already undergone about three years of sentence, under the circumstances, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(Nandita Dubey) Judge 29/03/2022 SMT. GEETHA NAIR gn 2022.03.29 15:31:07 +05'30'