Madhya Pradesh High Court
Meharbansingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 769 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MEHARBANSINGH S/O SULTANSINGH @
SARTANSINGH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOR R/O VILLAGE FATEHGARH P.S. AGAR DISTT.
AGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI MANOJ SAXENA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION A.J.K. DISTT.
AGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SURENDRA GUPTA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
GENERAL.)
HEARD ON : 04.04.2024
RESERVED ON : 02.05.2024
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the
appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.12.2023, passed by Special
Judge, (SC/ST(PA) Act), District Shajapur in S.T. No.600441/2016, whereby
the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307,
504 and 506-II of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 7 years, 3 months and 1
year RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- Rs.300/- and Rs.700/-, with default stipulations.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 11.10.2016 at about 10.00 am when
complainant/injured Bagduram was sitting near the hut situated in his field, the
applicant came to the spot and informed Bagduram to remove the hay of
soyabean, which was stored by complainant in the boundary in between the
filed of complainant and the applicant. The complainant told him that at present
there is no one in his house and when his family members come back he will
remove the same. Thereafter applicant assaulted complainant with axe on his
head due to which he started bleeding and fell down. When the applicant again
assaulted the complainant on his shoulder (hasli) then complainant's son and
wife came there in rescue. On seeing them the applicant ran away from the spot
and he also threatened to kill the complainant. Complainant/injured was
admitted in Agar District Hospital by his son Gopal and Amrut (complainant's
nephew). After medical examination MLC was prepared and the same was sent
to Agar Police Station. On the basis of Police started investigating the matter.
Bagduram was referred to Ujjain hospital from where he was referred to M.Y.
Hospital Indore for further treatment.
3 . On the basis of statement of injured -Bagduram Dehati Nalisi was
prepared and FIR was registered at crime No.558/2016 at Police Station Agar
for offence under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v-a) of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
During investigation spot map was prepared, statement of witnesses were
recorded and statement of injured and his wife was also recorded, blood
stained soil and cloth piece and one plastic box were recovered from the spot.
4 . After due investigation, section 307 was aggravated against the
appellant and charge-sheet was filed against the appellant/accused under
Sections 307, 294, 323, 506-II of IPC, 1860 and Section 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 against the appellant.
5. The appellant was tried and charged under Sections 307, 294, 323,
506-II of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989. He abjured his
guilt and took a plea that he had been falsely implicated in the present crime and
prayed for trial.
6. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 14
witnesses namely Bagduram (PW-1) complainant/injured, Gopal (PW-2), Anil
(PW-3), Suganbai (PW-4), Jamnabai (PW-5), Shyamubai (PW-6), Shamboo
(PW-7),Dr. Mahesh Nigwal (PW-8), Jagdishchandra Chourdiya (PW-9)
Shankar Gowri (PW-10), Jyoti Bhargav (PW-11), Sushil Kochwar (PW-12),
Anil Gamad (PW-13), Dr. Seema Kumre (PW-14). No witness has been
adduced by the appellant in his defence.
7 . Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and argument
adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 30.12.2023 and
finally concluded the case and convicted the appellant for commission of
offence as mentioned above in para No. 1 of this judgment.
8 . Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the the appellant is
innocent and the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant wrongly without
considering the evidence available on record. Counsel for the appellant further
submits that the appellant has not caused any fatal injury to the injured because
there is nothing on record to show that the injured has received serious injury. It
is further submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses but the learned trial Court has erred in
ignoring the same and in convicting the appellant. It is further submitted that the
incident had happened all of a sudden, there is no knowledge and intention or
motive to assault the injured, hence, the offence shall not travel more than the
offence under Section 326 of IPC, but the learned trial Court has wrongly
convicted appellant under Section 307 of IPC without considering the evidence
available on record.
9. In alternate, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced
for 07 years R.I., but looking to the factum that there is no knowledge and
intention or motive to assault the injured, the case of the prosecution should not
travel more than the offence under Section 326 of IPC. Hence, prays for
reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone or as the Court may
deem fit in the interest of justice.
1 0 . Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. Inviting my
attention towards the conclusive paragraphs of the impugned judgement,
learned public prosecutor has submitted that the injured has received the
injuries caused by the appellant and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted
the appellant by sentencing him appropriately. Hence, prays for dismissal of the
appeal.
11 . In backdrop of the rival submissions and evidence available on
record, the point for determination in this appeal is as to whether the findings of
the learned trial Court regarding conviction and sentencing the appellant under
Section 307, 504 & 506 (Part-II) of IPC is incorrect in the eyes of law and
facts.
12. At the outset, this Court is examining the validity of conviction under
Sections 504 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC. Virtually, learned trial Court has given
the findings in this regard in para 51 of the impugned judgment wherein learned
trial Court stated that since accused has insulted the injured by abusing, he will
be convicted under Section 504 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC. On this aspect, the
statement of Bagduram has been examined, however, he has said only that
accused has abused him in the name of his mother but he has not stated
anything regarding insult. So far as the threatening is concerned, as per
statement of complainant Bagduram, the accused while running away was
stating to remove the bagda otherwise he will kill him. In this way, the threat
also appears to be conditional. It is also not unfolded by the statement of
injured Bagduram as to whether he has been intimidated by the said threatening
or not. As such, the findings of the learned trial Court regarding conviction
under Sections 504 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC are not found in consonance of
law. Accordingly, the conviction under Sections 504 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC
is not sustainable.
1 3 . In order to evaluate the prosecution evidence, with regard to
conviction for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, the statement of
complainant/injured Bagduram (PW-1) is required to be ruminated. In his
statements, he deposed that when he was on his well accused Meharbansingh
came and stated to remove chaff of wheat. In course of conversation, accused
assaulted with axe on his head and he fell down. On his screaming, Gopal and
Amrit came. Seeing them, accused fled away stating that he will kill him in
future. Thereafter, the report Ex-P/1 was scribed on dehatinalisi. The statement
of injured was fortified by Gopal (PW-2), Shuganbai (PW-4), Jamnabai (PW-
5), Shyamubai (PW-6). In cross-examination, the statements of aforesaid
witnesses remain intact.
14. Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant has expostulated
that all witnesses are related and interested witnesses, thus on the basis of their
testimonies, the appellant can not be convicted. Certainly, the witnesses are
related to each other. On this aspect in the case of "Dilip Singh vs. State of
Punjab" reported as AIR 1953 SC 364, the full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed in para 26 as under:
"26. ......... Ordinarily, a close relative would be
the last to screen the real culprit and falsely
implicate an innocent person. It is true, when
feelings run high and there is personal cause' for
enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an
innocent person against whom a witness has a
grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must
be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of
relationship far from being a foundation is often a
sure guarantee of truth."
15. Further in the case of Masalti vs. State of Uṭtar Pradesh reported in
[AIR 1965 SC 202] wherein it has been held in para 14 as under:
" 1 4 . .......... There is no doubt that when a
criminal Court has to appreciate evidence given by
witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to
b e very careful in weighing such evidence.
Whether or not there are discrepancies in the
evidence; whether or not the evidence strikes the
Court as genuine; whether or not the story
disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all
matters which must be taken into account. But it
would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that
evidence given by witnesses should be discarded
only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or
interested witnesses. Often enough, where factions
prevail in villages and murders are committed as a
result of enmity between such factions, criminal
Courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan
type. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on
the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably
lead to failure of justice."
16. As such, the argument regarding interested witnesses is also appears
to be feeble arguments. So far as the relatedness and interestedness is
concerned, in a recent decision laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Laltu Ghosh vs. State of West Bangal AIR 2019 SC 1058 is relevant to be
referred here:
"This Court has elucidated the difference between
'interested' and 'related' witnesses in a plethora
of cases, stating that a witness may be called
interested only when he or she derives some
benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the
context of a criminal case would mean that the
witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing
the accused punished due to prior enmity or other
reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate
the accused".
17. As per the human tendency, a close relative would put forth the actual
story of incident rather than hide the actual culprit and foist an innocent person.
Virtually, in many of the criminal cases, it is often seen that the offence is
witnessed by close relatives of the victim, whose presence on the spot of
incident would be natural and the evidence of such witness cannot automatically
be discarded by leveling them as interested witness.
18. However, in this appeal on the basis of evidence available on record,
this Court is satisfied that the finding of the learned trial Court regarding causing
voluntary grievous hurt by sharp weapon is in accordance with law and facts. It
is also well settled principle that the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus"
has no application in India. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaktilal
Afdul Gaffar Khan Vs. Basant Raghunath Gogle reported in (2005) 7 SCC
749 has held as under :-
".....it is the duty of Court to separate grain from
chaff. Falsity of particular material witness or
material particular would not ruin it from the
beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus
in omnibus" has no application in India and the
witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim
"falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received
general acceptance nor has this maxim come to
occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule
of caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such
cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it
must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves
the question of weight of evidence which a Court
may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is
not what may be called 'a mandatory rule of
evidence".
19. So far as the arguments regarding non-availability of independent
witnesses is concerned, it is well settled that no criminal case can be
overboarded due to non-availability of independent prosecution witnesses. In
this regard, the following verdict of landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court rendered in the case of Appa Bhai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC
696 is worth referring here as under:
"10.......Experience reminds us that civilized
people are generally insensitive when a crime is
committed even in their presence. They withdraw
both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep
themselves away from the Court unless it is
inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute
is between two individuals or parties and they
should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy
of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is
there everywhere whether in village life, towns or
cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which
the investigating agency has to discharge its duties.
The court, therefore, instead of doubting the
prosecution case for want of independent witness
must consider the broad spectrum of the
prosecution version and then search for the nugget
of truth with due regard to probability if any,
suggested by the accused......"
20. In the case of Mohd. Naushad Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),
reported in 2023 LawSuit (SC) 659, the Full Bench of Hon'ble the Apex
Court, considering the kind of apathy adopted by the general public in not
coming forward to depose to associate with the prosecution, endorsed the
aforesaid verdict. As such, only on the basis of non-examination of any
independent witness, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out, specially when
the testimony of witnesses inspires confidence. This incident was happened
on the agricultural field and it cannot be desired that it would be supported by
an independent person because it is out of reach from any independent person.
21. Since there is no convincing evidence to discard the testimony of
injured, his sole testimony which is backed by instant FIR and medical reports
is sufficient to evince the prosecution case.
22. In view of the aforesaid proposition, no case can be thrown out only
o n the basis that it was not supported by independent witnesses. Hence, the
stand of learned defence counsel regarding non-availability of independent
witnesses is also found without leg. Having said that, this case is well fortified
by injured Bagduram. As far as the importance of testimony of injured witness
is concerned, the view of Hon'ble Apex court rendered in the case of Bhajan
Singh @ Harbhajan Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2011 SC
2552 is condign to quote here as under:-
"The testimony of an injured witness has its own
relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries
at the time and place of occurrence and this lends
support to his testimony that he was present at the
time of occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an
injured witness is accorded a special status in law.
Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of
his presence at the scene of the crime and is
unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to
falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence
is required to discredit an injured witness."
23. In course of arguments, Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel fro the
appellant has also pointed out that there are many contradictions and omissions
between the statements of injured witness and other witnesses. The blood stains
on the axe were also not graphically examined by the prosecution. Certainly,
there are some minor variations in the statements of the prosecution witnesses,
but there are not touching the root of the case.
24. On this aspect, the observations of Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel vs. State of U.P. [2022
Law Suit (SC) 1311] has been held as under:-
164. As the prosecution has established the occurrence of the
incident through the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, and we are in
agreement with the judgment of the High Court that these are credible
ocular witnesses whose statements are corroborated by other
contemporaneous evidence, certain minor variations, such as non-
recovery of blood-stained clothes, certain other weapons etc. will not
be fatal to the case of the prosecution. This principle is well
established in cases where there are credible injured eye-witness
testimonies. In Lakshman Singh v. State of Bihar, this Court held:
"9. In Mansingh [State of M.P. v. Mansingh,
(2003) 10 SCC 414 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 390]
, it is observed and held by this Court that "the
evidence of injured witnesses has greater
evidentiary value and unless compelling
reasons exist, their statements are not to be
discarded lightly". It is further observed in the
said decision that "minor discrepancies do not
corrode the credibility of an otherwise
acceptable evidence". It is further observed that
"mere non-mention of the name of an eyewitness
does not render the prosecution version
fragile".
9.1. A similar view has been expressed by
this Court in the subsequent decision in Abdul
Sayeed [Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P.,
(2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
1262] . It was the case of identification by
witnesses in a crowd of assailants. It is held
that "in cases where there are large number of
assailants, it can be difficult for witnesses to
identify each assailant and attribute specific
role to him". It is further observed that "when
incident stood concluded within few minutes, it
is natural that exact version of incident
revealing every minute detail i.e. meticulous
exactitude of individual acts, cannot be given by
eyewitnesses". It is further observed that
"where witness to occurrence was himself
injured in the incident, testimony of such
witness is generally considered to be very
reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an
inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of
crime and is unlikely to spare his actual
assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate
someone". It is further observed that "thus,
deposition of injured witness should be relied
upon unless there are strong grounds for
rejection of his evidence on basis of major
contradictions and discrepancies therein".
9.2. The aforesaid principle of law has been
reiterated again by this Court in Ramvilas
[Ramvilas v. State of M.P., 43 (2021) 9 SCC
191. (2016) 16 SCC 316 : (2016) 4 SCC (Cri)
850] and it is held that "evidence of injured
witnesses is entitled to a great weight and very
cogent and convincing grounds are required to
discard their evidence". It is further observed
that "being injured witnesses, their presence at
the time and place of occurrence cannot be
doubted."
25. In view of the aforesaid propositions, the testimony of the witnesses
cannot be discredited or wiped out only on the basis that they are having some
contradictions on trivial matter. In this case, where the injured has supported the
prosecution case and the testimony of injured was backed by medical
testimonies. As such the aforesaid contentions regarding contradictions and
omissions are not liable to be accepted.
26. In upshot of the aforesaid analysis of evidence as well as proposition
of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution succeeded
in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt that appellant has caused injury to
the injured/complainant.
27. Now, turning to the nature of injuries, as per the statement of Dr.
Mahesh Nigwal (PW-8), due to injury, the injured has received lacerated wound
on clavicle region and there was also incised wound for which x-ray was
advised. In this case, a city scan of brain was also conducted. As per city scan
rep o rt (Ex.-P/18) and statement of Dr. Sushil Kachewar (PW-12) "A
Hemorrhagic contusion of 25 x 18 mm with edema in surroundings, seen in left
high fronto-parietal region. Minimal pneumocephalous, sulcal and extra axial
bleed seen locally. Inwards displaced comminuted fracture of left high frontal
and parietal bones, with extra cranial soft tissue swelling and surgical
emphysema noted. Right maxillary polyp is seen."
28. Nevertheless, the testimony of the medical witnesses and eye
witnesses regarding causing injury by axe has not been controverted in their
cross-examination. However, it is envisaged that the appellant has caused only
one injury on head of the injured and in this regard, statements of witnesses
remain intact. As such, the injury received by injured came in the purview of
definition under Section 320 of IPC as it contains fracture. Hence, the findings
of learned trial Court regarding grievous injury, is found infallible and intact.
2 9 . Now, the question is as to whether the injury was caused with
intention or knowledge to kill the injured. In this case, it is fact that the
prosecution has not set up the case that the said injuries were sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature.
30. In order to justify the conviction under Section 307 of IPC, the Court
has to examine the nature of the weapon used and the manner in which it is
used. In addition to that severity as well as number of the blows and the part of
body where the injury was caused, are also taken into account to determine the
nature of the offence. The role of motive is also ought to be taken into
consideration.
31. Further, in view of the reports and the nature of the injuries, it cannot
be ascertained that the accused has intention to murder, or knowledge as to the
fact that the injured would be killed by this injury. Undisputedly, this is a case of
single blow on head and the prosecution has also not setup that the said injury
of vital part was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The
other injuries are retrievable in nature. The part of motive for causing such injury
is also not established by the prosecution. In this regard, The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Jai Narayan Singh vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1972 SC
1764] mandated as under:-...
"11. Taking the case of appellant Suraj Mishra, we
find that he has been convicted under Section 307
IPC and sentenced to 5 years rigorous
imprisonment. According to the evidence Suraj
was responsible for the chest injury which is
described by Dr. Mishra P.W. 6 as a penetrating
wound 1 1/2" x 1/2 x chest wall deep (wound not
probed) on the side of the right side of the chest.
Margins were clean out. Suraj, according to the
evidence, had thrust a bhala into the chest when
Shyamdutt had fallen as a result of the blow given
by Mandeo with the Farsa on his head. According
to the Doctor the wound in the chest was of a
grievous nature as the patient developed surgical
emphysema on the right side of the chest. There
w a s profuse bleeding and, according to the
Medical Officer the condition of the patient at the
time of the admission was low and serious and the
injury was dangerous to life. Out of the four
injuries which the Medical Officer noted, this
injury was of a grievous nature while the other
three injuries were simple in nature. Where four or
five persons attack a man with deadly weapons it
may well be presumed that the intention is to cause
death In the present case however, three injuries
are of simple nature though deadly weapons were
used and the fourth injury caused by Suraj, though
endangering life could not be deemed to be an
injury which would have necessarily caused death
but for timely medical aid. The benefit of doubt
must, therefore, be given to Suraj with regard to
t h e injury intended to be caused and, in our
opinion, the offence is not one under Section 307
IPC but Section 326 IPC is set aside and we
convict him under Section 326-IPC. His sentence
of 5 years rigorous imprisonment will have to be
reduced accordingly to 3 years rigorous
imprisonment."
32. In a recent case of Mukesh S/o Jam Singh Damor vs. State of
M.P. & Others 2022 Law Suit (MP) 165; High Court of M.P. Bench has
observed as under:-
"9. It is well settled that an act which is sufficient
in the ordinary course to cause death of the person,
but the intention on the part of the accused is
lacking, the act would not constitute an offence
under Section 307 of IPC. The medical evidence
has to be taken for determining the intention of the
accused. The intention and knowledge of the act
being one of the major factor i.e. used to decide
conviction under Section 307 of IPC. Before it is
held that the act committed by the accused amounts
to attempt to murder, it should be satisfied that the
act was committed with such intention or
knowledge under such circumstances that if it had
caused death, it would have amounted to murder."
33. In a recent case of Panchram vs. State of Chattisgarh & Another
reported in AIR 2023 SC 1801, the Hon'ble Apex has considered as
under:-
"In his statement, the injured appearing as PW-1
submitted that when Munna (PW 6) shouted for help,
Kantilal (PW 8) and Radheyshyam (PW 9) came there and
seeing them the accused ran away. However, Kantilal (PW
8) was declared hostile. The prosecution had produced
another witness Radhey Shyam (PW 7). He was also
declared hostile and did not support the prosecution
version. Even the scissors which was seized by the police
i s small scissors which is used by tailors. With the
aforesaid evidence on record and the kind of weapon
used, in our view the offence will not fall within Section
307 I.P.C. From the reasons for fight as are emerging on
record, it doesn't seem to be pre-planned act. It, at the
most, can fall within the four corners of Section 326 IPC
as a sharp-edged weapon was used. The injuries were not
caused with an intention to cause death and were not
sufficient to cause death. Hence, in our view the
conviction of the appellant with respect Section 307 IPC
cannot be sustained however the offence under Section
326 IPC is made out."
34. On conspectus of the aforesaid settled proposition of law and factual
matrix of the case, there is nothing available on record which advert such
intention or knowledge by which the offence of attempt to murder can be
drawn. The offence occurred on a general altercations between the appellant
and injured and it was happened on spur of moment. The substance of motive
for causing death is clearly missing in this case.
35. Having gone through the record and medical reports including the
statements of witnesses, this is crystal clear that the injured has received only
one injury on his vital part head which was found grievous but it was not
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The prosecution has
succeeded to prove that the said injury was caused by a sharp or dangerous
object. Under these circumstances, the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC are
missing in the present case, nevertheless, in purview of the aforesaid
deliberations, it is established by the prosecution beyond the reasonable doubt
that the appellant has caused grievous injury by assaulting him using a sharp and
dangerous weapon axe.
36. In upshot of the aforesaid deliberations in entirety, the judgment of
learned trial Court qua conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is
found unsustainable and instead of Section 307 of IPC and in the light of the
judgment passed by Apex court in the case of Jainarayan (supra) and
Panchram (supra), the appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 326 of
IPC. So far as the conviction under Sections 504 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC is
concerned, in view of the aforesaid discussion, deserve to be and is set aside.
37. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant
for the offence under Section 307 of IPC is set aside and instead thereof, he is
convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 years
R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo
for three months S.I. In this sequel, thereof, conviction and punishment for the
offence under Sections 504 and 506 (Part-II) is set aside. Accordingly, the
appeal is partly allowed.
3 8 . The appellant is in jail. He shall be released from the jail after
completion of the aforesaid sentence and depositing the fine amount.
39. The fine amount, if already deposited shall be adjusted.
40. If the fine amount is recovered completely, Rs.10000/- shall be
paid to the complainant/injured Bagduram. The compensation amount, if
already paid to the injured shall be adjusted.
41. The judgment regarding disposal of the seized property stands
confirmed.
42. A copy of this order alongwith the record of the trial Court, be sent
to the learned trial Court for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
AMIT
