Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10939
1 CRA-2711-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 24th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2711 of 2022
ARVIND
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Govind Pal Singh Songara, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') has been preferred against the
judgment dated 08.03.2022 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge,
Shujalpur, district Shajapur in S.T.No.220/2020, whereby the appellant has
been convicted for offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (for
short 'IPC'), and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs.3,000/-
with usual default stipulation.
2. The prosecution story as emerged during trial is that on
12.10.2020 at about 8:30 P.M. the complainant, Mohanlal (PW-1) and his
son Arvind @ Arjun (PW-4) were at their residence. Two months prior to
the date of incident, the appellant has given two mobile phones and one
silver ring to his daughter Pooja whereon he objected and advised the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10939
2 CRA-2711-2022
appellant not to give mobile phone and engage in conversation with his
daughter due to this on 12.10.2020 at 8:30 P.M., the appellant came to his
house and stared hurling filthy abuses, when his son injured Arvind @
Arjun(PW-4) objected for hurling abuses, the appellant took out knife from
his pocket with intention to kill Arvind @ Arjun, stabbed him in his stomach
which caused injury and started bleeding. When he shouted for help Sharif
Shah (PW-7) and Goverdhan Meena came on the spot and witnessed the
incident. Arvind @ Arjun(PW-4) was taken to the hospital for treatment by
Ambulance 108. As Arvind @ Arjun did not come to sense, he was referred
for further treatment to Bhopal. FIR was lodged by Mohanlal at Police
Station Kalapipal which was registered vide crime no.346/2020 for offence
under Sections 307,294,506 of IPC and investigation was initiated. During
investigation, spot map Ex.P-2 was prepared by Inspector Rajesh Sinha(PW-
11). Blood stain and plain soil were seized in the presence of the witnesses
and seizure memo Ex.P-3 was prepared by Dinesh Nagar (PW-10).
Statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and on the
information given by the appellant, a knife was seized at his instance.
3. The appellant was arrested and after investigation, charge sheet
was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. After completing the
formalities enshrined under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. committed the case to the
Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge made over this case to II
Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur for trial. The learned Judge framed
charges against the appellant under Sections 450, 294 (2 counts), 307 and
506 Part-II of IPC. The appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10939
3 CRA-2711-2022
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 12
witnesses, including complainant Mohanlal (PW-1), Dr. Amit Sisodiya(PW-
2), Dr.B.L.Verma (PW-3), injured Arvind @ Arjun (PW-4) who examined
the injured, Pooja (PW-5), Anil Goyal (PW-6), Sharif Shah (PW-7). That
apart documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-14, Ex.C-1 were also marked in evidence.
4. When the incriminating material as appeared in the prosecution
witnesses was placed before the appellant during his examination under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant either denied them or expressed
innocence. In defence, he has stated was that he is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in this case, but no evidence has been led except the
statements of Mohanlal (PW-1) marked as D-1 and Arvind @Arjun as D-2.
5. The trial Court on the basis of evidence available on record,
convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated hereinabove.
6. The conviction and sentence has been challenged on the ground
that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated evidence led by the
prosecution and that material contradictions, omissions and anomalies in the
statement of the prosecution witnesses have also been ignored. Further
contention is that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
case due to feeling of enimosity as he was having intimacy with sister of
injured. It is further submitted that the finding of guilt arrived at by the trial
Court is contrary to law and facts of the case. On these premises, learned
counsel for the appellant urges the Court to set aside the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence by allowing this appeal.
6.1 In the alternative limb of prayer, learned counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10939
4 CRA-2711-2022
appellant submits that the incident had taken place due to some altercation
between Arvind@Arjun (PW-4) and the appellant. This was not pre-planned
and appellant is not having any criminal antecedents. He is in jail since
17.10.2020 i.e he suffered incarceration of 4 years and more than 6 months,
out of 10 years of sentence awarded to him which is on the higher side. He
prays for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the
impugned judgment submits that trial Court on careful appreciation of
evidence available on record has come to the finding that it was the appellant
who armed with knife committed house tress pass on the date of incident by
stabbing and causing life threatening injuries to the injured Arvind @ Arjun
(PW-4) and accordingly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence which does not require any interference and prays for dismissal of
this appeal.
8. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone
through the record of the case.
9. The question for consideration before this court is whether the
finding of guilt arrived at by the learned trial Court is against the evidence on
record and also against the relevant legal position?
10. As far as the injury on the persons of injured is concerned, it has
been proved by Dr. B.L.Verma (PW-3) and Dr. Amit Sisodiya (PW-2).
Dr.B.L.Verma (PW-3) has stated that on 12.10.2020 he was posted as
Medical Officer in Community Hospital, Kalapipal wherein Arvind @ Arjun
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10939
5 CRA-2711-2022
(PW-4) was brought by Ambulance 108 for examination and treatment. On
examination he found one stabbed wound of size 2 x 1.4 cm in the epigastric
region of the injured with clean cut margins. The injury was caused by hard
and sharp object. Within a period of three hours from the time of
examination, he prepared MLC Ex.P-5 which bears his signatures and after
that he referred the injured Arvind @ Arjun (PW-4) for further treatment to
Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal and also intimated police station Kalapipal in this
regard.
11. Dr. Amit Sisodiya (PW-2) stated before the Court that on
13.10.2020 he was posted at Surgery Department of Gandhi Medical College
and Hamidia Hospital Bhopal as RSO II. On that date, when Arvind @ Arjun
(PW-4) was brought, who was referred from Civil Hospital, Shujalpur was
admitted for treatment on 13.10.2020 vide OPD No.11353820, MLC
No.9672. He was informed that Arvind @ Arjun (PW-4) has sustained injury
in his stomach which was caused by some person known to him by hard and
sharp object. On examination, wound size of 2 x 1 cm on epigastric region
was found. On the basis of sonography report it was found that in the
stomach water and blood was present therefore, he was operated and a hole
of size 1 x 1 cm was found in the stomach which was repaired. The injury
was life threatening. If the patient had not been operated, he must have lost
his life. The injured remained hospitalized from 13.10.2020 to 19.10.2020.
MLC/RSO report is Ex.P-4. Nothing adverse has come into force in the
cross-examination therefore, it is found proved by the statement of Dr. Amit
Sisodiya (PW-2) that injured was stabbed and injury found on the stomach
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10939
6 CRA-2711-2022
was life threatening. The weapon used on vital part of body chosen for
assault and force used reveals intention of the appellant to kill the injured.
12. Arvind @Arjun(PW-4) has supported the prosecution case by his
statement in the court. He has stated that near about 3-4 months back at 8:30
in the night from the date of statement, appellant came to his house alleging
as to why he is raising false allegations against him. He further submits that
appellant was advised by his father regarding supply of two mobile phones
and one silver ring to his sister Pooja (PW-5). Being aggrieved by this,
appellant on the date of incident, came to his house and stabbed him in his
stomach, which caused injury and after that, he fainted. He was taken to the
hospital at Kalapipal by Ambulance 108. He has been cross examined at
length, but nothing adverse has surfaced in the cross examination which
would discredit his testimony. The testimony of Arvind @ Arjun (PW-4) is
also supported by Mohanlal (PW-1) who has lodged FIR Ex.P-1 after the
incident of stabbing upon Arvind @Arjun(PW-4) caused by the appellant.
Statement of Arvind @Arjun (PW-4) is also supported by Pooja (PW-5),
Anil Goyal (PW-6). Statements of these witnesses are reliable, as they are
supported by each other and also by MLC report Ex.P-5 and statements of
Dr. B.L.Verma (PW-3) and Dr. Amit Sisodiya (PW-2).
13. On basis of evidence the trial Court has recorded a finding that it
is the appellant who has caused the life threatening injury to the
injured Arvind @Arjun(PW-4), with intention to kill him is impregnable as it
is based on due appreciation of evidence therefore, this finding is upheld.
14. As far as alternative limb of prayer is concerned, it appears
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10939
7 CRA-2711-2022
reasonable as appellant is not having any criminal antecedents. Therefore,
R.I. of 10 years for the offence committed appears to be on high side. He has
suffered incarceration of 4 years and 6 months, coupled with the fact that
single injury has been caused to the injured, therefore the period of jail
sentence imposed on the appellant for offence under Section 307 of IPC
deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
15. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the
appellant is hereby affirmed. The jail sentence is reduced to the period
already undergone, as mentioned herein above. The fine imposed upon the
appellant shall remain intact. If it is found that the appellant has not
deposited the fine amount, as imposed by the learned trial Court, then he will
have to suffer the jail sentence in default of payment of fine amount. The
appellant is in jail. The appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any
other case.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Jail by the fastest
available mode. A copy of the judgment along with the record be sent back
to the concerned Court for compliance and necessary action.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RJ
