Narayan Singh vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 11108 MP

                                                                           1
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
                                            PRADESH
                                          AT INDORE
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH

                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 811 of 2000
                         BETWEEN:-
                         NARAYANSINGH S/O DEEPSINGH RAJPUT,
                         AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
                         OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                         R/O. VILLAGE LAKHNETI,
                         P.S. BARKHEDA KALA,
                         DISTRICT RATLAM
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                       .....APPELLANT
                         (SHRI VIVEK SINGH - ADVOCATE)


                         AND
                         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         THROUGH P.S. BARKHEDA KALA,
                         DISTRICT RATLAM
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS

                         (SHRI SURENDRA GUPTA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
                         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Reserved on                 - 13.07.2023

                         Delivered on               - 18.07.2023
                         ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                         following:




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 20-07-
2023 17:22:28
                                                              2
                                                       JUDGMENT

1. Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, on 06.07.2000 in S.T. No.39/2000, wherein learned Judge has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 325 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo 4 years R.I and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation.

2. Before dwelling on the appeal it is worth mentioning that this case was initially related with Section 302 of IPC, but learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence converted it into offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC.

3. As per prosecution case, on 28.12.1999 at about 12.00 noon when the deceased Ramsingh was going to the nearby pond to fetch water to his bulls at that time the appellant came with a wooden stick and started assaulting the deceased on his head due to the dispute regarding grazing cattle in filed. As a result of which Ramsingh sustained injury on his left eye and thereafter once again appellant assaulted the deceased on his left forehead due to which he started bleeding and fell down. On hearing the noise of the injured, one Bhakvar Singh, Radheshyam and Gordhan came in rescue; hence, the appellant warned the injured and fled away from the spot. Thereafter Ramsingh along with his son-in-law Jujaarsingh went to police station and filed a complaint. On the basis of which FIR has been against the appellant under 323, 506 of IPC, 1860.

4. During investigation, injured Ramsingh was sent for medical examination, spot map was prepared, seizure memos were prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. During treatment Ramsingh died on 29.12.1999, therefore Police added Section 302 of IPC against

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 20-07-

2023 17:22:28

the appellant, After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before JMFC, Alott against the accused for offence under Sections 323, 506 and 302 of IPC, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately it was transferred to the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam.

5. The prosecution has examined total 9 witnesses namely the Jujaar Singh, (PW-1), Radheshyam (PW-2), Bhanwarsingh (PW-3), Rameshchandra (PW-4), Ghordhan (PW-5), Bakhtawarsingh (PW-6), Bhe\uvan (PW-7), Ramgopal Joshi (PW-8), Dr.B.L. Charturvedi (PW-

9). No witness has been examined in support of the defence by the appellant. The appellant abjured his guilt and he took a plea that he is innocent.

6. The appellant was tried and charged under Sections 323, 506 and 302 of IPC. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence and material available on record has convicted the appellant, as stated above in para no.1 of this order.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant expressly gave up his challenge to the findings of the Court below so far as the conviction of the appellant is concerned under Sections 325 of IPC, 1860. In other words, the learned counsel for the appellant accepted the finding of conviction on merits, however, he challenged the quantum of punishment (4 years R.I) awarded to the appellant under Sections 325 of IPC, 1860 alone.

08. Counsel for the appellant assures that the appellant will not involve in such criminal activities in future. He also submitted that having regard to all circumstances which resulted in appellant's conviction and further keeping in view the fact that the appellant was facing the trial before the concerned Court for more than 22 years and

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 20-07-

2023 17:22:28

have already undergone more than 7 months imprisonment therefore, the term of imprisonment be reduced to the period as already been undergone by the appellant and the fine amount be enhanced suitably.

09. Learned Govt. Advocate has opposed the prayer by inviting the attention of this Court towards the statement of Dr. B.L. Chaturvedi (P.W.9) so also the conclusive paragraphs of the impugned judgment and submitted that the injuries caused by the appellant were serious in nature. He supported the judgment by submitting that there is clear evidence against the appellant, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

10. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and have perused the record.

11. After going through the record and medical reports including the statements of the witnesses, this is crystal clear that the injured received injuries on his left skull, left eye and sustained fracture on the left side of the vertical frontal bone, which was caused by wooden stick and the injuries were of simple in nature. It is further evident that the death occurred due to the shock sustained on account of head injury, therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the incident occurred on a spur of moment and there was no prior intention to commit murder is just and proper. The judgment of the learned trial Court qua the conviction of the appellants is hereby affirmed.

12. So far as the sentence part is concerned, considering the fact that the appellant is facing the trial for more than 22 years and he has already suffered jail sentence of more than 7 months, the judgment of learned trial Court is modified to the extent that the sentence of the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone in place of four years by

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 20-07-

2023 17:22:28

enhancing the total fine amount from Rs.2000/- to Rs.50,000/-, which shall be paid by the appellant within a period of two months from today. In case of failure of payment of enhanced fine amount of Rs.50,000/- before the Court below as stipulated above, the appellant shall further undergo 3 months S.I. and thereafter completion of the same, he shall be released from the jail, if not required in any other case. Out of the enhanced fine amount a sum of Rs.30,000/- shall be paid to LRs of the deceased as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C after adjusting the compensation amount if already paid to them.

13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of.

14. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for necessary information.

15. The order of the trial Court regarding disposal of the seized article stands confirmed.

Certified copy, as per rules.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE sumathi

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time: 20-07-

2023 17:22:28