Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanman And Others vs State Of M.P. on 13 January, 2023
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 13th OF JANUARY, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.195 OF 2001
BETWEEN:-
1. SANMAN S/O DHANNA, AGED 22 YEARS.
2. PARMAL S/O DHANNA LAL, AGED 18
YEARS,
ALL R/O VILLAGE DESHAI KHADA,
THANA PIPRAI, DISTRICT GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH).
........APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI LAKHPAT SINGH CHAUHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION PIPRAI, DISTRICT GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH).
........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR SHUKLA - DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 3rd of January, 2023
Pronounced on : 13th of January, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Criminal Appeal having been heard and reserved for
judgment, coming on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
2
Satyendra Kumar Singh, pronounced the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for brevity "Cr.P.C.") has been preferred against the judgment
dated 5/1/2001, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Mungawali, District Guna (M.P.) in S.T. No.140/2000, whereby the
appellants have been convicted under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 323 r/w
34 (on two counts) of Indian Penal Code (for brevity "IPC") and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-, in default
to suffer further one month's imprisonment and imprisonment for one
year (on each count) respectively.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:
(i) The complainant Shanti Bai and appellants are neighbors. On
19/2/2000 at about 20.00 hours, when complainant Shanti Bai and her
husband Tofan were talking about the person, who used to excrete in
their courtyard daily, appellants alongwith co-accused Khumaniya Bai
and other co-accused persons, namely, Kishna and Babua came their
armed with lathi (wooden sticks), and assaulted complainant's husband
Tofan with Lathi on his head and other vital parts of his body. Co-
accused Khumaniya Bai caught hold and pulled his private part, due to
which he fell down. After hearing the screams of the complainant, when
complainant's nephew Lakhan came there to rescue Tofan, appellants
also assaulted Lakhan and complainant both with lathi. Thereafter,
Mangilal and Bharosa came there, then appellants and co-accused
persons fled away from the spot. Complainant and her nephew Lakhan
immediately took the injured Tofan to Police Station Piprai, District
Guna, where in the same intervening night, i.e. 19-20/2/2000 at 00.45
hours, on the basis of oral complaint made by the complainant, FIR
bearing Crime No.21/2000 (Ex. P/1) was lodged, whereafter, all of them
including Tofan were sent to PHC Piprai, Distt. Guna for medical
examination.
(ii) In the same intervening night at about 01.10 hours, Dr. B.L.
Kushwah medically examined Tofan and found following injuries on his
body:
(1) Lacerated Wound, measuring 3cm x 0.5cm x
1cm, on the vertex of skull.
(2) Contusion, measuring 4cm x 4cm, on the left
temporal region.
(3) Contusion, measuring 6cm x 4cm, on the left
thoracic back.
Dr. B.L. Kushwah prepared MLC report (Ex. P/8) and opined that
all the above injuries were caused by hard and blunt object within 24
hours from the time of medical examination and nature of injuries no.1
& 2 were dangerous to life, while nature of injury no.3 was simple. He
vide letter (Ex. P/9) referred Tofan for X-ray of his skull and further
treatment to District Hospital Guna.
iii) In the same intervening night, while taking to District Hospital
Guna, Tofan succumbed to the injuries and brought back to PHC Piprai.
ASI, R.S. Verma called the witnesses, issuing Safina Form (Ex. P/2),
prepared Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex. P/3) of the body of the deceased
Tofan and vide letter (Ex. P/12-A), sent the same for postmortem
examination. On the same day, at about 11.50 hours, Dr. B.L. Kushwah
conducted the postmortem of the body of the deceased and prepared
postmortem report (Ex. P/12) and opined that his death seems to be
homicidal and was caused due to cardio-respiratory failure because of
brain injury within 36 hours of the postmortem. On the same day, he
also medically examined the complainant Shanti Bai and her nephew
Lakhan and found simple injuries on their bodies as per MLC reports,
Ex.P/10 and Ex.P/11 respectively.
(iv) During investigation, ASI R.S. Verma went to the place of
occurence and prepared spot map, Ex.P/4. I/O, S.I. Sanjay Chaturvedi
arrested the appellant-Sanman, recorded his disclosure statements
(Ex.P/5) and on the basis of which, on his instance, seized a lathi
(wooden stick) from his possession, as per seizure memo (Ex.P/6). He
also arrested co-accused Kishan and seized a lathi from his possession
as per seizure memo (Ex. P/7). H.C. Premnarayan arrested appellant
Parmal, recorded his disclosure statements (Ex. P/13) and on the basis
of which, on his instance, seized a lathi as per seizure memo (Ex. P/14).
After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungawali (Chanderi), District
Guna, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Guna,
who made over the same to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Mungawali, District Guna.
3. Learned Trial Court considering the material prima facie available
on record, framed the charges under Sections 302 r/w 149 and 323 r/w
149 (on two counts) of IPC against the appellants and co-accused
persons Khumaniya Bai, Kishna and Babua, who abjured the guilt and
prayed for trial.
4. Learned Trial Court after appreciating oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the co-accused
persons Khumaniya Bai, Kishna and Babua from all the charges, while
recorded the findings of conviction against the appellants for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 323 r/w 34 (on two
counts) of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of this
judgment.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, appellants have preferred the instant appeal for
setting aside the impugned judgment and discharging them from the
charges framed against them.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned
judgment has confined his arguments only on the point that the incident
took place all of a sudden on a very petty issue and the acts of the
appellants in allegedly assaulting the deceased was an outcome of heat
of passion upon said sudden quarrel, therefore, the appellants' case
squarely falls within exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. The appellants
are facing trial since the year 2000 and have suffered till now about 7
years and 8 months incarceration. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, the
benefit of exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC may be given to the
appellants while upholding their conviction and their sentence may be
reduced to the period already undergone by them.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State while
supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
submits that judgment so passed by the Trial Court is based on proper
appreciation of evidence available on record. Prosecution has proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence be confirmed and the appeal filed by
the appellants deserves to be dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record.
9. Prosecution case is based on direct evidence and prosecution in its
support has examined in all 11 prosecution witnesses including
complainant Shanti Bai (PW-1), her nephew Lakhan (PW-2), her son
Malkhan Singh (PW-3), Mangilal (PW-4) and Bharosa (PW-5), as
eyewitnesses. Other material witnesses are Dr. B.L. Kushwah (PW-7),
who medically examined the complainant, her husband deceased- Tofan
Singh and nephew Lakhan and also conducted the postmortem of the
body of the deceased- Tofan Singh. ASI, R.S. Verma (PW-9), who
lodged the FIR (Ex. P/1) and SI, Sanjay Chaturvedi (PW-11), who
investigated the case.
10. From the evidence produced on record, this fact seems undisputed
that the appellants and complainant Shanti Bai are neighbors and were
known to each other. Complainant Shanti Bai (PW-1) deposed that on
the date of incident, in the night when she was talking with her husband
Tofan Singh about the person who used to excrete in their courtyard,
appellants Sanman and Parmal alongwith co-accused Khumaniya Bai
came there and assaulted her husband Tofan with lathi on her head. She
deposed that after hearing her screams, when her nephew Lakhan came
there and tried to rescue Tofan, both the appellants assaulted Lakhan
with lathi, and when she tried to intervene, appellant Sanman assaulted
her with lathi on her right hand.
11. Lakhan (PW-2) has also made similar statements and deposed that
on the date of incident at about 20.00 hours, after hearing her aunt's
screams when he came out from his house, which is opposite to the
house of her aunt, he saw the appellants assaulting Tofan with lathi on
his head. He further deposed that when he reached the spot and tried to
rescue Tofan, appellant Sanman assaulted him with lathi on his left
hand, while appellant Parmal assaulted him with lathi on his ribs. He
further deposed that when his aunt Shanti Bai tried to rescue him,
appellant Sanman assaulted her with lathi.
12. Complainant Shanti Bai (PW-1) deposed that after the incident
she alongwith her nephew Lakhan and son Malkhan took her husband
Tofan Singh, on bullock-cart, to Police Station Piprai and lodged the
FIR, Ex.P/1, whereafter, they were sent to PHC Piprai for medical
examination. Dr. B.L. Kushwah (PW-7) deposed that in the intervening
night of 19-20/2/2000, he after medically examining the complainant's
husband Tofan Singh as per MLC report, Ex. P/8, referred him for x-ray
of his skull and further treatment to District Hospital Guna vide letter,
Ex.P/9. He further deposed that since in the same intervening night
Tofan succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, therefore, on the
same day he conducted the postmortem of his body and found following
injuries on his body:-
(1) A contusion, measuring 6cm x 4cm, on the left thoracic back.
(2) Contusion, measuring 4cm x 4cm, on the left temporal region
of head.
(3) Lacerated Wound, measuring 3cm x 0.5cm x 1cm, deep up to
bone, on the vertex of skull.
He deposed that he prepared the postmortem report, Ex.P/12, and
opined that all the above injuries were caused by hard & blunt object
and were antemortem in nature. Injuries no. 2 & 3 were dangerous to
life, while injury no.1 was simple. His death seems to be homicidal and
was caused due to cardio-respiratory arrest, due to brain injury as a
result of head injury within 36 hours of postmortem examination.
13. Dr. B.L. Kushwah (PW-7) deposed that on the same day he also
medically examined complainant Shanti Bai and Lakhan and found
following injuries on their body:-
Shanti bai:-
(1) A contusion, measuring 6cm x 4cm, on her
right elbow's posterolateral aspect.
Lakhan :-
(1) An abrated contusion on the postero lateral aspect
of the left elbow & upper 1/3rd of left forearm.
(2) An abrated contusion 6cm x 6cm on the left
thoracic back.
(3) A contusion 3cm x 3cm on the right shoulder.
He deposed that he prepared MLC reports, Ex.P/10 and Ex.P/11
with respect to injuries found on the body of the complainant Shanti Bai
and her nephew Lakhan respectively, and opined that all the injuries
found on their body were caused by hard and blunt object within 24
hours of the medical examination.
14. Statements of the complainant Shati Bai (PW-1) and Lakhan
(PW-2) about the incident, find support from the statements of Dr. B.L.
Kushwah (PW-7) and postmortem report, Ex. P/12, of the deceased
Tofan and MLC reports, Ex.P/10 and Ex.P/11, of the complainant and
Lakhan, and also from the FIR, Ex.P/1, lodged just after the incident
and appellants have not seriously challenged the occurrence of the
incident, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case
that on the date of incident at about 20.00 hours, a quarrel took place
between the appellants and complainant's husband Tofan, wherein
appellants assaulted Tofan with lathi on his head and caused grievous
injuries, as mentioned above, as a result of which, he succumbed to the
injuries sustained by him.
15. So far as the issue whether appellants assaulted Tofan with an
intent to commit his murder is concerned, admittedly the incident took
place all of a sudden when complainant was talking with her husband
deceased- Tofan Singh about the person who used to excrete in their
courtyard. In this regard, contents of the FIR, Ex.P/1, lodged by the
complainant are material. She in her FIR, Ex.P/1 specifically stated that
when she was talking with her husband about the person who used to
excrete in their courtyard, appellants started quarreling with them and
when she and her husband asked appellants why they were quarreling,
they alongwith other co-accused persons armed with Lathi came there
and assaulted Tofan. There is nothing else on record to suggest that the
appellants gave the blows in question either with the intention of
causing murder of the deceased Tofan or they can be said to have the
requisite knowledge that death would otherwise be the inevitable result.
Therefore, looking to the contents of the FIR, Ex.P/1, lodged by the
complainant, the submissions made by learned counsel for the
appellants have force that the incident took place all of a sudden and
there was no premeditation of mind to commit the crime that too murder
of the complainant's husband- Tofan.
16. In this regard judgment passed by Honorable t he Supreme Court in
the case of K. Ravi Kumar vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2015)
2 SCC 638 can be relied upon. Relevant paras are as under:
9. Before we turn to the facts of this case, it is
apposite to take note of the principle of law laid down
by this Court as to in which circumstances, the
accused is held entitled to claim the benefit of
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC thereby is entitled to
seek conversion of the offence committed by him
from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. Indeed, the principle of law on this issue
remains no longer res integra and settled by a series
of decisions of this Court. What has varied is its
application to every case.
10. Exception 4 to Section 300 reads as under:
"300. Murder - Except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death, or -
................................................ Exception 4 :
Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed
without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of
passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the
offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation - It is immaterial in such cases which
partly offers the provocation or commits the first
assault."
11. In Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh,
(1989) 2 SCC 217, this Court on the same issue held
that if on a sudden quarrel a person in the heat of the
moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes
injuries out of which only one proves fatal, he would
be entitled to the benefit of the Exception provided he
has not acted cruelly. This Court held that the number
of wounds caused during the occurrence in such a
situation was not the decisive factor. What was
important was that the occurrence had taken place on
account of a sudden and unpremeditated fight and the
offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Dealing
with the provision of Exception 4 to Section 300, this
Court observed:
"7. To invoke this exception four
requirements must be satisfied, namely,
(i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no
premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of
passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue
advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the
quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered
the provocation or started the assault. The number of
wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive
factor but what is important is that the occurrence
must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the
offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course,
the offender must not have taken any undue advantage
or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden
quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a
weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of
which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit
of this exception provided he has not acted
cruelly......."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. In Ghapoo Yadav and Ors. v. State of M.P., (2003)
3 SCC 528, this Court held that in a heat of passion
there must be no time for the passion to cool down
and that the parties had in that case before the Court
worked themselves into a fury on account of the
verbal altercation in the beginning. Apart from the
incident being the result of a sudden quarrel without
premeditation, the law requires that the offender
should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner to be able to claim the benefit
of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Whether or not the
fight was sudden, was declared by the Court to be
decided in the facts and circumstances of each case.
The following passage from the decision is apposite:
"10. .......... The help of Exception 4 can be
invoked if death is caused:
(a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c)
without the offender's having taken undue advantage
or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the
fight must have been with the person killed. To bring
a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients
mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that
the "fight" occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300
IPC is not defined in the Indian Penal Code. It takes
two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that
there must be no time for the passions to cool down
and in this case, the parties have worked themselves
into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the
beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more
persons whether with or without weapons. It is not
possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall
be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of
fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must
necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each
case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not
sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and
there was no premeditation. It must further be shown
that the offender has not taken undue advantage or
acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The expression
"undue advantage" as used in the provision means
"unfair advantage".(Emphasis supplied) xxx xxx xxx
"11......... After the injuries were inflicted the
injured had fallen down, but there is no material to
show that thereafter any injury was inflicted when he
was in a helpless condition. The assaults were made at
random. Even the previous altercations were verbal
and not physical. It is not the case of the prosecution
that the accused-appellants had come prepared and
armed for attacking the deceased. ............. This
goes to show that in the heat of passion upon a sudden
quarrel followed by a fight the accused persons had
caused injuries on the deceased, but had not acted in a
cruel or unusual manner. That being so, Exception 4
to Section 300 IPC is clearly applicable......."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. In Sukbhir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3
SCC 327, the appellant caused two Bhala blows on
the vital part of the body of the deceased that was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. The High Court held that the appellant had
acted in a cruel and unusual manner. Reversing the
view taken by the High Court this Court held that all
fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as
cruel or unusual for the purposes of Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC. In cases where after the injured had
fallen down, the appellant-accused did not inflict any
further injury when he was in a helpless position, it
may indicate that he had not acted in a cruel or
unusual manner. This Court observed:
"19..........All fatal injuries resulting in death
cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the purposes
of not availing the benefit of Exception 4 of Section
300 IPC. After the injuries were inflicted and the
injured had fallen down, the appellant is not shown to
have inflicted any other injury upon his person when
he was in a helpless position. It is proved that in the
heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel followed by a
fight, the accused who was armed with bhala caused
injuries at random and thus did not act in a cruel or
unusual manner."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. In Mahesh v. State of M.P., (1996) 10 SCC
668,where the appellant had assaulted the deceased in
a sudden fight and after giving him one blow he had
not caused any further injury to the deceased which
fact situation was held by this Court to be sufficient to
bring the case under Exception 4 to Section 300 of
IPC. This Court held:
"4. ..............Thus, placed as the appellant and
the deceased were at the time of the occurrence, it
appears to us that the appellant assaulted the deceased
in that sudden fight and after giving him one blow
took to his heels. He did not cause any other injury to
the deceased and therefore it cannot be said that he
acted in any cruel or unusual manner. Admittedly, he
did not assault PW 2 or PW 6 who were also present
along with the deceased and who had also requested
the appellant not to allow his cattle to graze in the
field of PW 1. This fortifies our belief that the assault
on the deceased was made during a sudden quarrel
without any premeditation. In this fact situation, we
are of the opinion that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
is clearly attracted to the case of the appellant and the
offence of which the appellant can be said to be guilty
would squarely fall under Section 304 (Part I) IPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. The law laid down in the aforesaid cases was
considered and applied recently by this Court in the
case reported in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770. In this case also, the
appellant-accused while passing on the field of the
deceased on a spur of moment indulged in heated talk
with the deceased which resulted in hitting a blow by
the appellantaccused to the deceased with the rod
causing death of the deceased. Justice T. S. Thakur,
speaking for the Bench, accepted the plea raised by
the appellant-accused and accordingly altered the
sentence falling under Section 304 Part II IPC by
giving him the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300
IPC. It was held by this Court as under:
"27......... we are of the opinion that the nature
of the simple injury inflicted by the accused, the part
of the body on which it was inflicted, the weapon
used to inflict the same and the circumstances in
which the injury was inflicted do not suggest that the
appellant had the intention to kill the deceased. All
that can be said is that the appellant had the
knowledge that the injury inflicted by him was likely
to cause the death of the deceased. The case would,
therefore, more appropriately fall under Section 304
Part II IPC."
16. Keeping in view the approach of this Court for
giving benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC in
cases mentioned above and applying the same to the
facts of this case, we are inclined to give benefit of
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC to the appellant by
altering his sentence awarded to the appellant
punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. This we say
so in the facts of this case for more than one reason.
Firstly, even according to the prosecution, there was
no premeditation in the commission of crime.
Secondly, there is not even a suggestion or we may
say conclusive evidence that the appellant had any
pre-determined motive or enmity to commit the
offence against the deceased leave alone a serious
offence like murder. Thirdly, incident that occurred
was due to sudden quarrel which ensued between the
appellant-accused and the deceased-Padma on the
issue of going to village Mandya to see the ailing
appellant's father. The appellant, on receiving this
news, had become upset and, therefore, his insistence
to see his ailing father immediately was natural and at
the same time, Padma's refusal to leave could lead to
heated exchange of words between them. True, it is
that it reached to its extreme inasmuch as the
appellant in heated exchange of words lost his mental
balance and poured kerosene on Padma setting her to
burn. However, the fact remains that it was an
outcome of sudden outburst and heated exchange with
no predetermined motive per se to kill her. Fourthly,
no conclusive evidence was adduced by the
prosecution to prove any kind of constant quarrel ever
ensued in the last 9 long years between the couple and
that too for a cause known to others which could lead
to killing Padma or whether any unsuccessful attempt
was ever made by the appellant to kill her in past and
lastly, we have not been able to see from the
postmortem report that any stab injury on Padma's
body was caused nor prosecution was able to prove
that any blood stained knife from the place of
occurrence was recovered at the instance of the
appellant or of any witness.
17. In the light of the aforementioned reasons,
which, in our opinion, emerge from the evidence on
record, we are of the considered view that these
reasons are sufficient to give benefit of Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC to the appellant and enables the
Court to hold that the offence in question was not
murder but it was an offence of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder as specified in Exception 4 to
Section 300 and hence punishable under Section 304
part II IPC
18. In the result, we allow the appeal but only to the
extent that instead of Section 302 IPC, the appellant
shall stand convicted for the offence of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder punishable under
Section 304 Part II IPC and accordingly sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10
years. The conviction and sentence imposed under
Section 498-A as also the fine imposed upon the
appellant and the default sentence awarded to him
shall remain unaltered which shall run concurrently.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also in view of the law
laid down by Honorable the Apex court, alleged acts of the appellants in
allegedly assaulting the deceased can very well be said to fall within
exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, and learned Trial Court has
committed an error in holding the appellants guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, in our considered
view the act of the appellants would fall under Section 304 (II) r/w 34 of
IPC and not under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, the
conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of
IPC is set aside and they are convicted for the offence under Section
304 (II ) r/w 34 of I.P.C.
18. So far as the issue with regard to the quantum of sentence
awarded to them for the aforesaid offence is concerned, as already
pointed out, the dispute arose on a very petty issue of excreting in the
courtyard of the complainant and the alleged incident took place in the
heat of passion without any premeditation upon a sudden quarrel. And
the incident took place in the year 2000 and appellants are facing trial
for the last 22-23 years and they have suffered till now about 7 years
and 8 months incarceration. Under these circumstances, this Court is of
the considered opinion, that the jail sentence already undergone by the
appellants would serve the justice.
19. In this regard the judgement passed by Honorable the Apex Court
in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1996 SC
2988 can be relied upon, wherein the accused had remained in jail for a
period of two years and the sentence of 4 years awarded under Section
304-Part II of IPC was reduced to the period already undergone by the
accused. In the case of Raj Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in
(2000) 10 SCC 151 also the accused was awarded the sentence already
undergone by him.
20. Accordingly, for the offences punishable u/S 304 (II) r/w 34 of
IPC, the appellants are awarded jail sentence which has already been
undergone by them. However, the fine amount is enhanced from
Rs.200/- to Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) each, in
default to suffer further one year imprisonment. The fine amount shall
be deposited by the appellants before the Trial Court. The total fine
amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) so deposited by the
appellants shall be paid to the complainant as compensation.
21. So for as their convictions under sections 323 r/w 34 (on two
counts) of IPC for causing simple injuries to the complainant Shanti Bai
and Lakhan are concerned, statements of complainant Shanti Bai (PW-
1) and Lakhan (PW-2) find support from the FIR, Ex.P/1, lodged by the
complainant and also from the medical evidence and nothing material
has been extracted during their cross-examination, on the basis of which
their statements can be disbelieved or doubted. Therefore, learned trial
court has not committed any error in convicting the appellants for the
offence u/s 323 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, their conviction u/S 323 r/w 34
(on two count) of IPC remains unaltered, but no separate sentence is
required to be imposed upon them for the above offence. [K.
Ramakrishnan Unnithan Vs State of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 309 is
referred to]
22. With the aforesaid modifications, this criminal appeal filed
against the judgment dated 5/1/2001, passed by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Mungawali, District Guna (M.P.) in S.T. No.140/2000 is
disposed of accordingly.
23. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged,
subject to deposit of enhanced fine amount.
24. The Registry is directed to immediately supply a copy of this
judgment to the Appellants, free of cost.
25. Let the record of the Trial Court be sent back immediately, along
with copy of this judgment, for necessary information and compliance
26. Appeal succeeds and is Allowed in part.
(ROHIT ARYA) (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Arun*
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2023.01.13 18:23:35 +05'30'
