Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nirbhan Yadav And Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 6 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1581 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
1. NIRBHAN YADAV S/O RAMNATH YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O POLICE STATION
BADAGAON, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. CHATPAL S/O RAGHUNATH YADAV, AGED ABOUT
29 YEARS, R/O KAKARWAHA P.S. BADAGAON
DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. VEER SINGH S/O RAMMILAN, AGED ABOUT 26
YEARS, R/O KAKARWAHA P.S. BADAGAON
DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI RAUNAK YADAV - ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF VIPIN YADAV
ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION
BADAGAON, DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRASANJEET CHATERJEE - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 374(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgement passed in S.T.
No.152/2001, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Teekamgarh whereby
the appellants were convicted under Section 326/34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo R.I. for
two months.
2. According to the prosecution, on 11.10.2000 at about 7 p.m., complainant
Vikram Singh was assaulted by the appellants and others and upon the report of
Vikram Singh, Police Badagaon, District Tikamgarh registered Crime
No.54/2000 under Section 307/149 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet
was filed against all the accused persons and they denied the charges and
demanded the trial. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7
witnesses and one witness was examined in defence by the accused persons.
After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Sessions Court
convicted the present appellants under Section 326/34 of IPC and sentenced as
stated above and at the same time, acquitted the other co-accused persons.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants argued that the
prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable
doubt and as there was enmity with the complainant party, false report has been
lodged against the appellants and others and they have been falsely implicated in
the case. A cross case was also registered upon the F.I.R. lodged on behalf of
accused party and therefore, in the facts and circumstances and in the absence
of any independent evidence, the judgment of conviction be set aside and
appeal be allowed and the appellants be acquitted from the charge.
4. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State
supported the judgment and submitted that victim Vikram Singh immediately
lodged F.I.R. against appellants and other accused persons. The incident was
duly described in the F.I.R., because of previous enmity the appellants along
with other accused persons assaulted on Vikram Singh and caused grievous
hurt to Vikram Singh by the dangerous weapons like rifle, sticks and ballam.
According to the learned Panel Lawyer, the learned trial Court has rightly
convicted the appellants and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is
based on due appreciation of evidence. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. I perused the record, documents, statements of the witnesses and
judgment and it reveals that F.I.R. has been lodged by Vikram Singh wherein
the allegations of assault was against all the accused persons. In the F.I.R.,
Vikram Singh stated that one Raghunath Yadav was carrying 315 bore rifle
whereas other accused persons were carrying the sticks, ballam and farsa. He
leveled the allegations against all the accused persons for causing injuries to him
and according to the F.I.R., Raghunath Yadav fired with 315 bore rifle and
injuries were caused to the victim above eyebrow on left side. He sustained the
injuries on forehead, above nose between both the eyebrows on forearm and
chest.
6. During examination in the Court, complainant Vikram Singh (PW-1)
leveled the allegations against all the accused persons for causing the injuries.
Bhagirath (PW-2) also leveled the allegations against all the accused persons for
causing the injuries. Rakesh (PW-3) stated that all of them were carrying
weapons and thereafter Nirbhan and Chatpal started beating to Vikram Singh.
Except PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, no one else has been examined to state in
respect of the incident. Dr. R.S. Rana (PW-6) and Dr. A.K. Mishra (PW-7)
were examined in respect of the injuries sustained by victim. According to the
statement of Dr. A.K. Mishra (PW-7), there was fracture in metacarpal bone of
the right hand and there was fracture in the index finger also.
7. Learned Sessions Court on the basis of above evidence has acquitted
other co-accused persons namely Bandu, Balkishan, Premlal, Raghunath,
Ramnath, Ramilan, Veersingh, Goverdhan, Karansingh and Amarsingh by
holding that the evidence against them was not sufficient to infer their
involvement in the incident. However, convicted the present appellants on the
basis of same evidence, especially on the basis of statement of Rakesh (PW-3)
who stated that the present appellants caused injuries to the victim. The
statement of PW-1 and PW-2 were omnibus in respect of all the accused
persons and no specific overt act has been alleged in the statement against the
present appellants. Only Rakesh (PW-3) has stated that the injuries were caused
by the present appellants but there are material contradictions with the statement
of PW-1 and PW-2. When on the basis of omnibus allegations, other accused
persons were acquitted, the finding of the trial Court that the offence is proved
against the appellants is erroneous. Even in the F.I.R. (Ex.P-1), the allegations
of causing injuries was against all the accused persons and overt act against
present appellants was stated. However, the involvement of present appellants
in the officene cannot be doubted. The learned counsel for the appellants
prayed to reduce the sentence to period already undergone. According to the
certificate available in the file of trial Court, , appellants Nirbhan and Chatpal
remained in custody of 38 days and appellant Veer Singh remained in custody
for 4 days.
8. In view of above, the evidence against the appellants are sufficient to
confirm the conviction under Section 326/34 of IPC, however, looking to the
fact that the incident occurred in the year 2000 and the appellants are facing the
litigation since last 23 years, I deem it proper to reduce the sentence of the
appellants to the period already undergone and enhance the amount of fine to
Rs.5000/- each. The enhanced amount of fine will be paid to the victim -Vikram
Singh as compensation.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence is reduced to the
period which the appellants have already undergone and fine amount is
enhanced to the extent of Rs.5000/- each. It is made clear that if the appellants
failed to deposit the enhanced amount of fine, within one month from today,
they will have to undergo the remaining jail sentence as awarded by the trial
Court.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
irf.
