Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rang Nath Pandey vs Sunder Lal & Anr. on 11 October, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 606 of 1998
BETWEEN:-
SUNDERLAL, AGED ABOUT 33
YEARS, (MADHYA PRADESH)
S/O SHIV BALAK KORI.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
R/O VILLAGE MUDHA.
P.S. SINGHPUR
DISTRICT SATNA (M.P.)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI HEMANT SEN WITH SHRI SANJAY
KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATES)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHIKHA SINGH BAGHEL - PANEL LAWYER)
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 743 of 1998
BETWEEN:-
RANG NATH PANDEY (MADHYA
PRADESH) S/O RAM KARAN
PANDEY. AGED ABOUT 33
YEARS. R/O VILLAGE MUDHA.
P.S. SINGHPUR DISTRICT
SATNA (M.P.)
.....APPELLANT
(NONE )
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11-Oct-23
4:15:41 PM
2
1. SUNDER LAL & ANR.
(MADHYA PRADESH) S/O SHIV
BALAK KORI. AGED ABOUT 33
YEARS. R/O VILLAGE MUDHA.
P.S. SINGHPUR DISTRICT
SATNA (M.P.)
2. STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION SINGHPUR, DISTRICT
SATNA
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS SHIKHA SINGH BAGHEL - PANEL LAWYER)
& (SHRI HEMANT SEN WITH SHRI SANJAY
KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATES FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.2. )
Reserved on : 04.10.2023
Pronounced on : 11.10.2023
This appeal revision having been heard and reserved for judgment,
coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
Present appeal and revision have been preferred against the judgment passed
on 27.02.1998 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge in S.T.No. 164/1995,
whereby the appellant-Sundarlal of CRA No.606/1998 was acquitted of the offence
of Section 307 of IPC and was convicted for a lesser offence of Section 324 of IPC,
sentencing him for that offence to rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of
Rs.1500/- with a clause to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of two months, in
case of non-payment of fine.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are that Kalawati is the sister of
complainant whose house was being constructed on the land of 30x30 sqft and
towards east of this land there was a property of appellant about 10ft away which was
being used by him as a passage. On the date of incident, the complainant was getting
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11-Oct-23
4:15:41 PM
the house of his sister plastered and for this labour was engaged. In the afternoon
when labour had gone for lunch, the appellant came there and gave a blow on the
neck of complainant Rangnath with the axe which he was carrying. The complainant
ran away but he was chased by the appellant. On raising hue and cry by the persons
on the spot, the appellant ran away. The matter was reported to the police and after
investigation crime No.83/1995 was registered under Section 307 IPC. Upon
conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted as aforesaid.
3. In CRA No.606/1998 the appellant has taken the grounds that the impugned
judgment suffers from illegality as no case of Section 324 IPC was made out against
the appellant. There were serious irregularities and illegalities in the prosecution story
and the appellant was falsely prosecuted. Dr. K.K. Shukla has specifically stated that
complainant was not brought before him by the police nor was there any requisition
form for medical examination. The complainant himself came to him and got himself
examined. He did not divulge the story to that doctor. This suggests that he himself
was the author of his injuries. After receiving the injuries, he did not directly go to the
Police Station for lodging the FIR, nor narrated the incident to the doctor or to any of
his companions. Dr. K.K. Shukla was an eye specialist. There is contradiction in
medical evidence because somewhere the injuries are noted to be incise wound and at
other places it is opined that the injury was lacerated. On the basis of this weak
evidence, holding the appellant convicted was palpably wrong. Further the benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act should have been given here. It is therefore prayed that
the impugned judgment be set aside and appellant be acquitted.
4. Challenging the acquittal of appellant under Section 307 IPC, this criminal
revision No. 743/1998 has been preferred by the complainant Rangnath Pandey on
the ground that the judgment is based upon wrong appreciation of facts and perverse
findings given thereupon. Dr.K.K. Shukla who was an eye specialist has given cogent
reason for contradiction about the nature of injury. The learned trial Court has failed
to appreciate the intention of appellant in causing injuries on the neck with an axe.
The learned Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in correct perspective. It is
therefore prayed that the appellant i.e. Sunderlal should be convicted for an offence
under Section 307 of IPC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11-Oct-23
4:15:41 PM
5. Appellant Sunderlal and respondent/State have been heard in criminal appeal
No.606/1998. On the date of final arguments no one appeared on behalf of the
complainant Rangnath Pandey in CRR No.743/1998, hence the arguments on behalf
of the respondents alone were heard finally.
6. Record of the Court below has been perused.
7. This Criminal Revision No.743/1998 has been preferred to challenge the
acquittal of appellant Sunderlal for the offence of Section 307 IPC. The powers of
revision available to the High Court under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. clearly specify that
nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise the High Court to convert a
finding of acquittal to one of conviction. In the light of this specific provision, it is
observed that the CRR No.743/1998 is not maintainable and under it, the finding of
acquittal passed by the learned trial Court under Section 307 IPC cannot be
examined. Accordingly, the CRR No.743/1998 stands dismissed.
8. CRA No.606/1998 that has been preferred by the appellant Sunderlal is argued
on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that there was a
property dispute pending between the parties. The appeal has been opposed by the
respondent/State on the ground that there has been evidence produced on behalf of
prosecution regarding involvement of appellant in the crime and causing injury to the
victim with the help of an axe. There has been serious contradiction in the medical
evidence regarding the nature of weapon used to cause the injuries and the
prosecution evidence is stable on the point that this injury was not dangerous to life.
Therefore, the learned trial Court observed that no case under Section 307 IPC is
made out against the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the prosecution
witnesses that the appellant used an axe to cause injury on the neck of complainant
Rangnath Pandey but which side of axe was used to cause injury was not proved by
the medical evidence. At one place it was observed that the wound was caused by
sharp cutting weapon while in Ex.P/5 it was observed that the wound was of lacerated
nature.
9. Considering this nature, the learned trial Court validly observed that whatever
side of an axe was used to cause injury, the axe itself was a deadly weapon and
Section 324 IPC covers the injury caused not only by the sharp cutting object but also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11-Oct-23
4:15:41 PM
the injuries caused by a deadly weapon. Thus, the observation made by the learned
trial Court that the injury caused on the neck by using either side of axe is covered
under Section 324 IPC cannot be challenged on any legal aspect.
10. This Court has to examine whether any such injury was caused by the
appellant and if yes, under what circumstances it was caused. The statements of
complainant Rangnath Pandey (PW/3) corroborates the prosecution's story that he
was struck with an axe by the appellant Sunderlal. Shambhoo (PW/4) does not claim
to have seen the incident but he claims to have heard the scream of Rangnath and saw
that the appellant was having the axe. Chunwadia (PW/7) and Mathura Prasad
(PW/10) also claim that they did not personally see the incident but on hearing the
scream of complainant they came to know about the incident. Balgovind (PW/8) is
the brother of complainant also claims to have reached the spot after hearing screams.
Jagat Bahadur (PW/9) claims to have seen the incident personally. The cross-
examination of these witnesses has not been successful enough to make these
witnesses unworthy of credit. Thus, on the basis of statement of these witnesses it is
proved that it was the appellant who caused the injury on the neck of complainant
Rangnath Pandey with an axe and the plea raised by the appellant that the
complainant was injured in an accident when he was cutting the branches is not found
trustworthy. It may be mentioned here that the nature of this injury was found to be
simple by the learned trial Court.
11. On the basis of above discussion it is proved that appellant caused simple
injury with deadly weapon to the complainant Rangnath Pandey. This Court has to
further examine the circumstances under which this incident occurred. The appellant
has taken a stand that in order to construct the house of his sister, the complainant
was encroaching upon the land of appellant and was cutting the branches of trees
which were standing on the land of appellant. For this appellants has relied upon the
documents of Ex.D/7 and D/8 while prosecution has relied upon the Patta issued in
favour of sister of Rangnath Pandey namely Kalawati which is marked as Ex.P/14
and also the order dated 30.03.1995 of Additional Tehsildar Raghunath Nagar marked
as Ex.P/18 as well as the letter sent by Additional Tehsildar to Sarpanch Gram
Panchayat Mudhakala dated 17.02.1995 marked as Ex.P/19.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11-Oct-23
4:15:41 PM
12. The aforesaid documents disclose that a Patta of land measuring 30x30 sqft
was allotted in favour of Kalawati on 07.02.1995. This land was situated in survey
No.316. An objection was raised before the Additional Tehsildar regarding illegal
encroachment by some of the beneficiaries in which name of Kalawati was also
included and in the light of this objection, a letter marked as Ex.P/19 was issued by
Addition Tehsildar on 17.02.1995. An order sheet dated 30.03.1995 refers to closure
of proceeding which is marked as Ex.P/18 but that does not disclose that by this order
the objection mentioned in Ex.P/19 was disposed off. Ex.D/8 is the application given
by the father of appellant in the Court of Additional Tehsildar raising objections
against some of the encroacher in which the name of Kalawati is also mentioned and
the application suggests that these non applicants were encroaching upon the land of
ownership of the father of appellant bearing survey No.317 and that they have already
encroached a part thereof. On the basis of this application a stay order was granted by
Additional Tehsildar vide his order dated 29.06.1995 marked as Ex.D/7.
13. The documentary evidence discussed above shows that there was a dispute
between the two parties i.e. appellant and complainant Rangnath Pandey who was
entrusted with the task to get the house of his sister constructed on survey No.316 and
it was claimed by the father of the appellant that in this exercise a part of his
adjoining land bearing No.317 was encroached upon by the complainant. The stay
order dated 29.06.1995 marked as Ex.D/7 shows that Kalawati and other persons
were directed by Additional Tehsildar not to continue with the construction. The next
date fixed in that case was 19.07.1995 and the FIR of this case is dated 07.07.1995.
Thus, it is evident that the incident occurred when the stay order passed by Additional
Tehsildar against construction was in existence and complainant defied that stay order
by getting the house of his sister Kalawati constructed.
14. The right of private defence to property needs to be examined in the
circumstances of this case. Section 104 IPC provides that this right extends to causing
any harm other than death, if this right was used to avoid the commission of theft,
mischief or criminal trespass against property. Here a case of exercise of right to
private defence of property is clearly established because the complainant was
violating the stay order granted in favour of appellant and was infringing with his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11-Oct-23
4:15:41 PM
right to the property by getting a structure constructed thereon and by cutting the trees
for that purpose..
15. Section 96 of IPC says nothing is an offence which is committed in the
exercise of the right of private defence. In the present case, it is proved that the
appellant was exercising his right of private defence to property within the prescribed
legal parameters. Hence, the act committed by appellant causing injury to
complainant cannot be categorised as an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
16. Accordingly, the appellant is acquitted from the offence of Section 324 IPC.
He is on bail, his bail bonds stands discharged.
17. The fine amount, if any, deposited by him shall be refunded to him.
18. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary
compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
DevS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVESH K
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 11-Oct-23
4:15:41 PM
