Madhya Pradesh High Court
Muneem vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1595 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
1. MUNEEM S/O ROOP SINGH THAKUR, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, KUMHARODA P.S. SUATALA DI.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NARAYAN S/O ROOP SINGH THAKUR, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, KUMHARODA, P.S.SUATALA,
DIST.NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI VINAY SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.P.S. SUATALA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI NARENDRA LODHI - PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
T he present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal
Procedure Code against the judgment of conviction dated 04.07.2011 delivered
in Sessions Trial No. 165/2010 whereby appellants have been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for 1 year each and fine of Rs. 1000/- each and section 326/34 of IPC each and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year each and fine of Rs. 1000/- each with
default stipulations.
2. Brief facts as per prosecution are that on 06.10.2008, the complainant
Pooran Singh was visiting his land and tending to his standing crops and at that
time the son of appellant No.1 was destroying the crops of the complainant with
his tractor. When the complainant tried to stop the son of appellant No.1, then
the appellant No.2 came and said that they would cultivate the land. When the
complainant asked the appellant No.2 not to abuse the complainant then the
appellant No.1 snatched axe carried by complainant and appellant No.1 hit the
complainant with axe in his right hand which resulted in oozing out of blood.
when the son of complainant came to the spot, then the accused persons fled
away.
3. The case was initially registered under other Sections of IPC but later
on, the offence under Section 326 was enhanced and the conviction is now
under Section 326 only.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that he is
pressing this appeal only to the extent of Section 326 of IPC because from the
medical evidence, the use of any dangerous weapons or means has not been
proved. Learned counsel for the appellants refers to the statement of Doctor
Dheer Kumar Bagmare (PW-4).
5. Upon perusal of the deposition of PW-4, it is seen that the said
witness has deposed that there was cutting injury at the base of little finger of
left hand. The injury was grievous in nature and caused by hard and blunt
object. In cross-examination the said doctor deposed that in the entire body of
the injured, he did not find any injury caused by sharp object and weapon. He
categorically accepted the suggestion of the defence that the injury on body of
the injured cannot be caused by axe.
6. Looking to the aforesaid deposition of PW-4, it is clear that the injury
was not caused on the injured complainant by means of axe. The prosecution
case is of causing injury by means of axe. Thus, in view of the deposition of
PW-4, the aforesaid finding of conviction under Section 326 of IPC cannot be
sustained. Consequently, the conviction is modified from one under Section
326 IPC to Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months
each and fine of Rs. 5000/- each, for such offence.
7. The appellants have not suffered incarceration because initially the
offence was registered under bailable sections and thereafter when section 326
IPC was enhanced, they were given benefit of anticipatory bail. Section 325
IPC is punishable for sentence upto 7 years.
8. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances that deserve to be
taken in consideration so far as the sentence part is concerned. The incident
took place in the year 2008 and accused/appellant has faced trial and this appeal
is pending since 2011, the accused/appellant has been under trial or appearing
before the Court as condition to suspension of sentence since long. Nothing
has come on record regarding misuse of conditions of bail/suspension of
sentence during the long period since the prosecution, trial and appeal are
pending.
9. In view of the mitigating circumstances of the case, as narrated above,
this Court thinks it appropriate to give benefit of probation to the appellants
under Section 360 Cr.P.C.
10. Accordingly, the appellants are released on probation of three years,
looking to their antecedents and the circumstances in which the offence was
committed that too, long ago. The appellants shall not indulge in any other
criminal offence under any provision of IPC or any other enactment. They will
execute a bond to this effect before the trial Court within a period of 15 days
from today with sureties as deemed fit by the trial Court.
11. In case the appellants are found involved in any other criminal
offences during the aforesaid period of three years, the sentence as awarded by
this judgment shall come into force and the appellants shall be taken into
custody to serve out the remaining jail sentence.
12. With the aforesaid, this appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE
Prar
