Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radhe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2553 of 2008
BETWEEN:-
1. RADHE S/O PUNNU AHIR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O VILLAGE MANDAWA, THANA LAKHANADON,
DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BIRJHU @ BRIJLAL S/O RADHE YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE MANDAWA,
THANA LAKHANADON, DISTRICT SEONI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI P. N. DAS-ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
LAKHANADON DISTRICT SEONI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANUJ SINGH-PANEL LAWYER)
Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the appellants Radhe and Birjhu being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.12.2008
passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Seoni in Special Criminal Case No.3/2007 (State of MP Vs. Radhe and another)
whereby appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under
Sections 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 6-6 months and under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and
have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2-2 years and fine of Rs.500-500/-. In
default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo further R.I. for
6-6 months. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. As per prosecution story, on 03.11.2006, Baktu appeared at police
station Lakhanadon and lodged F.I.R. stating that he is resident of village
Madwa and is a farmer. He is panch of his ward. Last year, he was given the
liability to supervise the work which was being got done under receipt work.
Radhe Yadav had worked in that relief work, but was not performing his work
sincerely and owing to that he had some spat with him. Since then Radhe was
having animosity with him. It is alleged that on 02.11.2006 at around 05:30 p.m.
when Baktu (PW-3) was going in search of his grand-daughter towards Jamna
(PW-4)'s house, as soon as he reached near Radhe Yadav's house, Radhe
Yadav abused and called him by his caste name. When he asked him not to
abuse, Radhe by means of wood stick assaulted him. Hearing the noise raised
by Baktu (PW-3), Jamna (PW-4) reached there to pacify the matter, but in the
meantime, accused Birjhu @ Brijlal armed with lathi came and started to beat
Jamna. Jamna sustained injury in his head. F.I.R. Ex.P/5 was recorded by head
constable Ramprasad Thakur (PW-10). In the course of investigation, Baktu
(PW-3) and Jamna (PW-4) were sent for medical examination. In hospital, they
were examined by Dr. J. S. Parteti (PW-1) and Dr. Deepak Pandey (PW-8). In
medical examination, fracture was found on the skull bone of Jamna (PW-4).
After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for commission of
offence under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506, 307/34 of I.PC. and Section 3(2)(v)
and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Seoni. .
3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge framed charge for
commission of offence under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506, 307/34 of I.PC. and
Section 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989
against both the accused persons. They abjured their guilt and claimed to be
tried.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Dr. J. S. Parteti (PW-
1), Mahesh (PW-2), Baktu (PW-3), Jamna (PW-4), Bisniya Bai (PW-5),
Dayawati Bai (PW-6), Ganaram (PW-7), Dr. Deepak Pandey (PW-8), B. S.
Nirkam (PW-9), Ramprasad Thakur (PW-10), Ramprasad (PW-11) and Dr.
Sanjay Rana (PW-12). No witness was examined in defence.
5. After hearing the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, learned
trial Court acquitted the appellants/accused for commission of offence under
Sections 294, 506-B of I.PC. and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 but convicted them for commission of
offence under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 in place of 307/34 of IPC and
sentenced them as mentioned herein above in para No. 1.
6. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted
that appellants does not want to challenge their conviction for commission of
offence under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC. It is submitted that
appellants/accused are first offenders. They have no criminal background.
Appellant No.1 Radhe is more than 66 years old person while appellant No.2
Birjhu @ Brijlal being first offender is also 44 years of age. It is further
submitted that appellant Radhe has already undergone five days jail sentence
while Birjhu one day jail sentence. Therefore, it is prayed that their jail sentence
may be reduced to the period already undergone by them by enhancing the fine
amount.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has supported the
judgment of conviction and findings recorded by the learned trial Court but has
fairly admitted that appellants/accused are facing trial for the last 18 years. They
are first offenders. Therefore, he has no objection if their jail sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone by them by enhancing the fine amount
to the tune of Rs.10,000/-10,000/- for offence under Section 325/34 of I.P.C.
and fine of Rs.1000/-1000/- under Section 323/34 of I.P.C.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
Special Case No.3/07 of the trial Court.
9. Baktu (PW-3) has deposed that he is a farmer and labour. He was
Panch of ward No.13. He was assigned to look after the work which was being
done under relief work. Radhe Yadav was working as a labour but he was not
working properly. Therefore, he had asked him to work properly and not to sit
as idle. He had some altercation with him. It is his deposition that on the date of
incident he was going in search his grand-daughter. When he reached in front of
Radhe Yadav's house, Radhe Yadav abused him and thereafter Radhe and
Birjhu came from behind and assaulted him by means of lathis causing injuries
and when Jamna Prasad came for his rescue, they also assaulted Jamna Prasad
by means of lathis causing injuries. The aforesaid evidence of Baktu (PW-3)
finds full corroboration from the evidence of another injured Jamna (PW-4) and
the evidence of eyewitnesses Bisniya Bai (PW-5), Dayawati Bai (PW-6) and
Ganaram (PW-7). Thus, the evidence of injured eyewitnesses Baktu (PW-3)
and Jamna (PW-4) finds full corroboration from the evidence of eyewitnesses
Bisniya Bai (PW-5), Dayawati Bai (PW-6) and Ganaram (PW-7). From their
evidence, it is apparent that both the appellants had assaulted Baktu (PW-3) and
Jamna (PW-4) and had caused simple injuries to Baktu and grievous injury to
Jamna.
10. Dr. J.S. Parteti (PW-1) examined Baktu (PW-3) on 03.11.2006 in
Community Health Centre Lakhanadon and found pain and swelling on his back
and one contusion in occipital region. Dr. Deepak Pandey (PW-8) examined
Jamna Prasad and found lacerated wound on his skull and swelling on his right
eyebrow. He had noticed bleeding from his nose and mouth and abrasion on his
neck. He had advised x-ray for injury nos.1 & 2. He has proved his MLC
report Ex.P/6. Dr. Sanjay Rana (PW-12) has deposed that he knew Dr.
Sandeep Dhurv as he was posted with him as resident medical officer and
therefore he is conversant with his handwriting. He has proved x-ray report
Ex.P/11 prepared by Dr. Sandeep Dhurv in which fracture is reported in the
skull bone of Jamna. From the medical evidence of Dr. J.S. Parteti (PW-1), Dr.
Deepak Pandey (PW-8), Dr. Sanjay Rana (PW-12) and x-ray report Ex.P/11, it
is apparent that in assault by both the appellants/accused persons, injured Baktu
(PW-3) had sustained simple injuries and Jamna had sustained grievous injury.
11. Head constable Ram Prasad Thakur (PW-10) is scribe of the F.I.R.
Ex.P/5 while B. S. Nirkam Deputy S. P. has supported the factum of seizure of
lathis. He has prepared site map Ex.P/7 and recorded the statements of
witnesses and arrested both the accused persons.
12. As far as the reliability of evidence of Baktu (PW-3) and Jamna (PW-
4) is concerned, their evidence stand fully supported by the evidence of
eyewitnesses Bisniya Bai (PW-5), Dayawati Bai (PW-6) and Ganaram (PW-7)
and medical evidence of Dr. J.S. Parteti (PW-1), Dr. Deepak Pandey (PW-8),
Dr. Sanjay Rana (PW-12) and x-ray report Ex.P/11. Thus, it is apparent that
learned trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the
appellants/accused for commission of offence under Sections 323/34 and
325/34 of IPC. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the well recorded
finding of conviction by the learned trial Court. Consequently, findings of
conviction of appellants recorded by learned trial Court for commission of
offence under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 of IPC are hereby confirmed.
13. As far the quantum of sentence is concerned, it is undisputed that
incident had taken place 18 years ago. Therefore, having taken into
consideration the lapse of a period of 18 years, it does not appear just and
proper to uphold the sentence of 6 months R.I. and 2 years R.I. under Sections
323/34 and 325/34 of I.P.C. as awarded by the learned trial Court. Therefore,
jail sentence of 6 months R.I. and 2 years R.I. for offences under Sections
323/34 and 325/34 of I.P.C. awarded by learned trial Court requires
interference. Hence, appeal is allowed on the point of sentence and their jail
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them so far by
enhancing the fine amount to the tune of Rs.10,000/-10,000/- for offence under
Section 325/34 of I.P.C. and fine of Rs.1000/-1000/- for offence under Section
323/34 of I.P.C.
14. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed. The
conviction of the appellants is confirmed but their jail sentence is reduced to the
jail period already undergone by them with fine amount of Rs.10,000/-10,000/-
for offence under Section 325/34 of I.P.C. and fine of Rs.1000/-1000/- for
offence under Section 323/34 of I.P.C. Appellants are directed to deposit
enhanced fine amount of Rs.9500/-9500/- (Rupees Nine thousand five hundred
each) for offence under Section 325/34 of I.P.C. and fine of Rs.1000/-1000/-
(Rupees one thousand each) for offence under Section 323/34 of I.P.C before
the trial Court within a period of two months from today. In case, appellants fail
to deposit enhanced fine amount within the said period they shall undergo R.I.
for 6-6 and 3-3 months for default in payment of fine.
15. This appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the
sentence.
16. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged after
depositing of enhanced fine amount. In case, appellants fail to deposit
enhanced fine amount, learned trial Court shall take all necessary steps to
realize the fine amount and to commit them to jail for undergoing the sentence
in default stipulation.
17. Trial Court record along with copy of appeal judgment be sent down
to the Court concerned through Sessions Judge, Seoni for compliance.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
b
