Anna @Sarafraj vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 6368 MP

                                                           1
                           IN       THE     HIGH     COURT OF MADHYA               PRADESH
                                                       AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                 ON THE 20 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1077 of 1999

                           BETWEEN:-
                           GOLU @LAXMAN S/O RAMPRATAP JOSHI AGE 19
                           YEARS  OCCU.   AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE
                           PANDYAKHEDI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT UJJAIN
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                 .....APPELLANT
                           (NONE FOR THE APPELLANT. SHRI SHIVENDRA SINGH - ADVOCATE
                           HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE TO ARGUE THE PRESENT
                           APPEAL)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION
                           CHIMANGANJ MANDI UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                .....RESPONDENT
                            (BY SHRI TARUN PAGARE- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1065 of 1999

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.      ANNA @SARAFRAJ S/O LATIF AGED 18 YEARS
                                   (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.      SURAJ @KEDAR S/O RATIRAM, AGED ABOUT 19
                                   YEARS, PADYAKHEDI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.      DAYARAM S/O LAXMINARAYAN AGED 20 YEARS
                                   ALL R/O PADYAKHEDI POLICE STATION
                                   CHIMANGANJ DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA
                                   PRADESH)

                                                                                .....APPELLANTS
                                (BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                                      AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 21/04/2023
10:13:13 AM
                                                               2
                           THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION
                           CHIMANGANJ DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI TARUN PAGARE- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                These appeals coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                           following:
                                                             JUDGMENT

Both the appeals are filed under section 374 of the Cr.P.C arising out of judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.08.1999 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in ST No.48/1998, whereby, the appellants have been convicted under section 341, 307/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo one month SI and 5 years RI respectively with fine of Rs.500/- with

default stipulations with default stipulations. Appellant nos.1 Anna @ Sarfaraj and appellant no.3 Dayaram have also been convicted under section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act and sentence to undergo RI of one year and fine of Rs.250/-. In default of payment of fine, further to undergo SI of two months.

2. As per prosecution case, on 12.10.1997 at about 12:15 AM, the complainant Omprakash who was running a tea stall near the house of the Chowkidar of the village was going on the road and at that time it is alleged that Dayaram and Anna were carrying sword in their hands and Golu and Suraj were carrying knife in their hands. Surrounded the complainant and abused him. It is alleged that Dayaram and Anna gave sword blow and Golu and Suraj gave knife blow on his person. Omprakash cried and hearing it, Puranlal father of the complainant and Ramu came on the spot and later on injured Omprakash was taken to the hospital. He was examined by Dr.Gautam PW/6 who gave his injury report Exb.P/14. On the basis of the aforesaid investigation, the charge sheet was filed for commission of the aforesaid offence. The appellants abjured Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 21/04/2023 10:13:13 AM

their guilt and pleaded innocence.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution could not prove the common intention and therefore, the conviction of the appellants under section 307/34 IPC is not sustainable. It is further argued that the injury caused by the appellant no.1 Anna and appellant no.3 Dayaram found to be dangerous to life but the injuries caused bythe other appellants were not found to be dangerous to life. It is further argued that the incident had taken place in the year 1997 and the appellants are on bail. No purpose would be served in sending the appellants jail.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/state supports the judgment of conviction and sentence.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the statement of PW No.2 Omprakash injured, who has specifically alleged that all the accused persons came armed with deadly weapon and abused him and inflicted many injuries. His testimony is supported by eye-witnesses PW No.3 Rahul and PW No.11 Puran Singh. PW No.6 Dr.Yogesh Gautam, who had examined the victim Omprakash has found seven injuries on his person. Out of seven injuries, the first three injuries have been found to be grievous and dangerous to life. The testimony of PW No.2 injured Omprakash is well corroborated with the medical evidence. Apart from that, the alleged weapon of

sword and knife were recovered on the memorandum of the accused persons and the seizure has been proved by the seizure witnesses.

6. Considering the manner of the incident, in which all the accused persons came with deadly weapon and surrounded the victim and caused injuries with the help of sword and knife. He received seven injuries out of which three injuries have been found to be dangerous to life. The common intention of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 21/04/2023 10:13:13 AM

accused persons is established by the prosecution to murder the victim.

7. After assimilation of facts and evidence by the prosecution, this court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond any doubt. There is no illegality in the judgment of conviction and sentence.

8. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Sourabh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 21/04/2023 10:13:13 AM