Kalyan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 19455 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kalyan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 November, 2023

Author: Anuradha Shukla

Bench: Anuradha Shukla

                                 1
 IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
           HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
                  ON THE 22 nd OF NOVEMBER, 2023
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 134 of 2008

BETWEEN:-
1.    KALYAN SINGH S/O MADHO SINGH THAKUR,
      AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

2.    LALLU RAJA S/O MADHO SINGH THAKUR, AGED
      ABOUT 19 YEARS,

      BOTH R/O VILLAGE BHESWARI P.S. BADAGON
      DISTT. TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI PRADEEP NAVERIYA - ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                                              .....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI S. P. CHADAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      Heard on        : 30.10.2023
      Pronounced on: 22.11.2023

      This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
                                JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by the judgment passed on 4.1.2008 by Third Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tikamgarh, in S.T. No.259/2005, this appeal has been preferred. Under the judgment, the appellants were convicted for the offence of Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC and were sentenced to R.I. of three years and six months respectively and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-

for the offence of Section 325/34 of IPC with a condition that in case of non- payment of fine the appellants shall undergo additional R.I. for six months.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant Daulat and his brothers, namely Harlal and Hiralal, were in their agriculture field, which they purchased in the name of their mother Durji Bai; there were labourers present in the field and they all were engaged in harvesting the crop of Gram; Roop Singh, companion of appellants, objected to their act of harvesting by claiming that the land belonged to him. It was suggested by the complainant side that let the crop be cut and the land be measured and in case any part of land is found to be in the share of appellants' side, the complainant party would give them equivalent

share in Gram crop but appellants' side refused to concede to this agreement and started assault; they were four in numbers and were carrying deadly weapons like iron rod, lohangi, lathi, etc.; they caused injuries to Daulat, Harlal and Hiralal; they were abusing and threatening them; when the complainant side tried to flee away, they were wrongfully restrained by the appellants; the matter was reported to the police on the same day and at Crime No.17/05 the case was registered. It is pertinent to mention here that a cross-case was registered against the complainant side as has been mentioned in the judgment of trial court and that case was registered under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of IPC. It is also mentioned in the impugned judgment that in that cross-case registered as S.T. No.118/05 the complainant side was convicted for the offence of murder of Roop Singh. By this impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid while another companion Devi Singh, who was tried along with appellants, was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted. The other companion of appellants Roop Singh had died next day to the incident.

3 . The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the impugned judgment recording conviction and passing sentence against the appellants is bad in law and also on facts; it has been wrongly held the appellants were liable for the commission of said offence; the story of prosecution was completely improbable and the learned trial court erred in wrongly appreciating the evidence; proper emphasis was not given to the defence version while recording the finding of guilt. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the appellants be acquitted in the case.

4. State has opposed the present appeal.

5. Arguments of both the sides have been heard and record of the trial court has been perused.

6. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that looking to the nature of offence proved against the appellants, the matter was referred for mediation and trained mediator, Principal District & Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh, initiated the proceedings by summoning both the parties; the mediation report discloses that parties could not arrive at any compromise because the complainant side was convicted in a cross-case for the murder of Roop Singh and appeal against that conviction is pending before the High Court, therefore, the matter is to be decided on its merits. It is although prayed by the counsel for appellants that this appeal may be considered only on the point of sentence and for this, the

appellants may be convicted for the period suffered by them in the imprisonment but the records of the trial court as well as of this court reveal that the appellants have not been in custody even for a single day in this case.

7. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of complainant Daulat Kachhi, who was an injured witness; besides him, the other two injured persons, namely Hiralal Kachhi (P.W.5) and Harlal Kachhi (P.W.6) were also examined

by prosecution. Halli Bai (P.W.4) is the wife of Daulat, who claims to be present at the time of incident. Sukhram Kachhi (P.W.7) is the relative of complainant Daulat. Smt. Tulsi Bai (P.W.8) and Sunka Bunkar (P.W.10) have been examined as eyewitnesses. Mathua (P.W.11) has testified to the presence of deceased Roop Singh on the agriculture field where the incident occurred. Dr. Amit Shukla (P.W.1) medically examined all the three injured persons and found injuries caused to them by hard and blunt object. According to him, complainant Daulat received grievous injury in the assault.

8 . The incident is claimed to have occurred in the agriculture field belonging to Durjeet Kushwaha. The spot map, Ex.P-14A, has given this detail and Daulat (P.W.3) at whose behest this map was prepared has not been cross- examined on the details given in the spot map. Further, I.O. L.L. Dubey (P.W.13) has also not been cross-examined regarding the correctness of details shown in spot map. It has been claimed by the prosecution witnesses that they were in the field belonging to Durji Bai where the incident occurred. Nowhere it is claimed by the appellants that complainant side was a trespasser on the land belonging to the appellants. It has been suggested by defence to the prosecution witnesses Halli Bai (P.W.4) and Hiralal Kachhi (P.W.5) that incident occurred when the cattle of appellants entered into the agriculture field belonging to the complainant side and appellants were attacked by complainant party when they tried to take away their cattle. Thus, it is an undisputed fact that the land where the incident occurred belonged to the complainant side and the appellants entered into their field after which a fight broke out.

9 . According to FIR, marked as Ex.P-12, and also on the ocular evidence led by prosecution, it appears that the complainant party was cutting

the Gram crop and were loading it on the tractor when the appellant party arrived inside their field and a dispute started between the two sides. According to the prosecution, appellants were claiming that the land belonged to them and therefore they were restraining the complainant side in cutting and loading the crop while, according to defence, appellants had entered the land where the incident occurred only to take away their cattle but they were attacked by the complainant side. Interestingly, no prosecution witness has admitted the plea raised in defence. Further, no evidence is led by appellants to prove their plea that they were not resisting the act of complainant side and had went to their agriculture field only to remove their cattle therefrom.

10. The defence taken by the appellants itself reflects that not only they but their cattle were the trespassers in the field belonging to the complainant side. It is nowhere claimed by the appellants that their cattle were caught or confined by the complainant party or they were not letting the cattle to go off. It appears from their defence that the crop of complainant was not damaged by these cattle as it was already cut and loaded on the tractor. Thus, the defence plea taken by appellants that they were attacked by complainant side for their cattle intruding into the field of complainant party does not inspire any confidence. On the contrary, prosecution evidence has convincingly proved that the appellants trespassed the land of complainant party and objected to the act of cutting the Gram crop and its loading on to the tractor. Since, no ownership over this land has been claimed by the appellants before the trial court, therefore it appears that appellants were not only the trespasser but also the aggressor party who initiated the dispute.

11 . From the testimony of prosecution witnesses, it is proved that appellants caused injuries to Daulat (P.W.3), Hiralal Kachhi (P.W.5) and Harlal

Kachhi (P.W.6). Although there is improvement in the testimony of these witnesses regarding the weapons used by appellants in causing these injuries but from the medical evidence it is proved that all the injuries caused to these injured persons were the result of blows given by hard and blunt object. Dr. Amit Shukla has proved the MLC reports of all these three injured persons, which are marked as Exs.P-1, P-5 and P-6. It has also been proved by Dr.Amit Shukla (P.W.1) that there were two fractures found on the person of complainant Daulat and for this, he has relied upon the X-ray report, Ex.P-2, and X-ray plates, Ex.P-3 and P-4. It has been suggested by the appellants to Dr. Amit Shukla (P.W.1) that all these injuries could have been caused on account of fall on a stony surface but these suggestions are bereft of reason, as complainant and injured witnesses were in their agriculture field and there was no reason for them to run therefrom hurriedly and getting injured in the process unless attacked by the other side. No witness has been examined in defence to suggest that he saw any of the injured witness falling on the ground and

sustaining injuries on that account.

12. The aforesaid discussion brings to the conclusion that appellants intruded into the land of complainant side and assaulted the complainant Daulat and his brothers Hiralal and Harlal with hard and blunt objects resulting into grievous injuries to Daulat and simple injuries to rest of the two injured persons.

13. It has been argued on behalf of appellants that it was the complainant party who caused the murder of Roop Singh and admittedly Roop Singh belonged to the appellants side. This fact has not been questioned by the prosecution but it cannot be ignored here that the complainant and injured persons were working in their field when this incident occurred and it was the

appellants' side who came inside the field and initiated the dispute.Therefore, causing the death of one of the persons belonging to the appellants' side cannot be the reason to reach to the finding of innocence in favour of appellants. They were the wrong doers who initiated the dispute and their acts resulted into grievous and simple injuries to three persons of the complainant side. Therefore, the crime of appellants was rightly held proved.

14. On the basis of foregoing discussion, the conviction of appellants under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC is upheld and their appeal fails regarding the finding of conviction.

1 5 . It has already been discussed that the request for reducing the sentence to the period undergone cannot be accepted for the reason that the appellants have never been in custody in this case. Their prayer to show leniency is to be considered in the light of the facts that they never resisted the complainant side to sow and grow the crop in their agriculture field and when the time to cut the crop came and the complainant side was executing the job, they objected to it.

16. Having considered these circumstances, the sentence of appellants for the offence of Section 325/34 of IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- while sentence for the offence of Section 323/34 of IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment of three months and fine amount of Rs.1,000/-. For each default of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo a further period of rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the substantial sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

17. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. They be taken into custody and be sent to jail to suffer the sentence.

18. Let the copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court along with its

record for information and necessary compliance.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE ps

Date: 2023.11.23 12:39:35 +05'30'