Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saroj Tekram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3531
1 CRA-10829-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10829 of 2023
SAROJ TEKRAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shishir Kumar Soni - Advocate for appellants.
Shri Sunil Gupta - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment and
sentence dated 17.08.2023 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge,
Balaghat in S.T.No.2400127/2016 by which the appellants has been
convicted for an offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine
amount of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of three months rigorous
imprisonment.
2. In nutshell, prosecution case before the trial Court was that the
victim- Nilavanti Pandre (PW-4) was residing with her maternal grand-father
in Paraspani and studying B.A. On 11.09.2015, the appellant assaulted her.
She sustained grievous injuries and she was found unconscious in the
morning by the maternal grand father. She was brought to hospital at
Balaghat for medical examination. After preliminary medical examination,
she was referred to higher center and she was admitted in the Medical
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3531
2 CRA-10829-2023
Collage, Hospital Nagpur where she was treated as indoor patient. On the
information by the hospital authorities, the case was registered against
unknown persons and when the victim returned after treatment, she filed an
application (Exhibit P-17) clearly stating that the appellants have assaulted
her. On that basis, the appellants were arrested. From their possession the
weapons of offence were recovered. Clothes of the appellants were
recovered. From the Medical Collage, Nagpur, pillow cover was recovered
and from the place of incident simple soil and blood stain soil was recovered.
After formal investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge
(SC/ST Act) and from remand the case was remanded to the concerned
Magistrate and after committal, the case was sent to Sessions Judge and after
transfer, the case was sent to trial Court.
3. The trial Court has framed charges under Section 307 r/w Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have not pleaded guilty and prayed
for trial. .
4. In trial Court, prosecution examined the witnesses. The appellants
were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
appellants stated that they are innocent and falsely been implicated in the
case but the appellants have not examined any defence witnesses.
5. The trial Court after hearing the parties, passed the impugned
judgment. Hence, this appeal.
6. During the pendency of this appeal, Nilavanti Pandre victim/injured
had filed compromise application that was verified by the Registrar (Judicial-
II) and as per the report of Registrar (Judicial-II) dated 22.10.2024, the
statements of the victim Kumari Nilavanti Pandre were recorded and as per
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3531
3 CRA-10829-2023
that she has filed entry of compromise in the matter.
7. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that at the time of
offence, the appellants were the persons below of age of 25 years. There is
no criminal record of the appellants. The appellant-Saroj Tekam was in
custody for 2 months and 22 days and appellant- Jitendra Rahangdale was in
custody for 7 months and 20 days and appellant - Rajesh Bhalavi was in
custody for 3 months and after passing of judgment dated 17.08.2023, they
are in custody. Hence, he is not challenging the conviction where their
substantive jail sentence be limited to the period already undergone.
8. Learned counsel for State Shri Sunil Gupta- Panel Lawyer has
submitted that appellants have assaulted the victim and injury was caused of
such a nature that it was endangering the life of the person and victim was
admitted in the hospital and as per the discharge card, she was under
treatment from 11.09.2015 to 11.10.2015. The offence is not compoundable.
Hence, their jail sentence cannot be limited to the period already undergone.
9. Though, the learned counsel for appellants has not challenged
conviction on merit but to verify the fact that the conviction is as per the
record or not.
10. I have perused the case record of the trial Court.
11. The witness Bhojlal Tekam (PW-1), Vinod Tekam (PW-2) and
Bhuraji Tekam (PW-3) have stated that the victim was residing in her
maternal grand-father's house and studying in P.G. Collage, Balaghat. On the
date of incident, at 6:00 AM, Bhuraji called and told that the victim is lying
with blood stained in the Badi. They lift the victim and brought to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3531
4 CRA-10829-2023
government hospital, Balaghat, Doctors of the hospital, Balaghat referred the
victim/injured Nilavanti for Nagpur. With the help of relatives, they carried
the victim to Nagpur hospital. She was admitted for a month in Nagpur
hospital and after that she was discharged from there.
12. Doctor, Ritwik Patel (PW-8) has stated on 12.09.2015, he was
posted in District Hospital, Balaghat as a Medical Officer. At 7:45 AM,
injured Nilavanti Pandre was brought in the hospital. The injury was caused
by sharp and hard object. He informed to report Police Chowki, District
Hospital, Balaghat and on the instructions of the In-charge of the Police
Chowki, he examined the injured and found that she was semi conscious and
not in position to cooperate. There was a deep incise wound on the head
measuring 4x0.5x1 cm. In the left side of the eye, there were two incise
wounds measuring 3x0.5x0.5 and 4x0.5x0.5 cm and there were multiple
incise wounds in the face and cheeks. The nail of right thumb was absent.
The injuries suffered by the victim were grievous in nature. He prepared the
report (Exhibit P-29). He further stated that on 16.09.2015, he received the
query from Police. On 09.10.2015, she submitted the opinion that the victim
suffered deep injury in the head and her situation was very critical injury was
likely to endangering the life and accurate opinion can be given after the
C.T. scan. The query report is Exhibit P-31.
13. Doctor Sanjay Dhabadghav (PW-11) has stated that on
17.10.2015, the victim was examined by the Medical Board and found that
there were scar mark in the face and Pinna of left ear of the victim and the
victim was having difficulty in moving but has opined that the deformality
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3531
5 CRA-10829-2023
and scar were temporary. They are submitted the report as Exhibit P-44.
Thus, this fact has also supported by the medical evidence that the victim
suffered grievance injury in the incident.
14. The victim Nilawanti Pandre (PW-4) in her statement has stated
that she is acquainted with the appellants. At the time of incident, she was
residing in Bhuraji Tekam's house village Paraspani and studying in B.A.
First Year. On 11.09.2015, there was a Chhat program in the house of
neighbor Netlal. After taking dinner from there, she went to sleep in her
house, then at 10:30 PM, her phone rang as there was not proper network in
the room, hence, she came out from the room and she saw the appellants
there and asked the appellants why they are standing there. On that appellant-
Jitendra asked her will she marry with his friend Saroj? then she refused the
proposal. On that, Rajesh that was having a Gamchha wrapped her face and
after that the appellant Jitendra assaulted on her head by wooden Patiya.
Saroj had also assaulted her by wooden Patiya and Saroj again assaulted her
by Patiya over her left eye and above the eyebrow. Jitendra repeated the
assault on her cheek and ear. She got unconscious and she got consciousness
in the Nagpur Hospital. She was treated for a month at Nagpur Hospital.
From returning Nagpur, she filed written application (Exhibit P-17) to the
Police Authority.
15. In the detailed cross-examination of this whiteness, nothing has
been brought by that it can be disbelieved that the appellants were not
involved in the case.
16. The witness Komendra Kumar Gautam, Acting Sub Inspector
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3531
6 CRA-10829-2023
(PW-14) has submitted that on 12.09.2015, he was posted as Assistant Sub
Inspector at Police Chowki, District Hospital, Balaghat, Doctor Ritwik Patel
sent the information regarding the injury to the Nilavanti Pandre. On that, he
has submitted MLC form (Exhibit P-29). The victim was not in position to
talk.
17. Thus, it is clear from the statements of the witnesses and the victim
that she suffered the injury in the incident that happened in the intervening
night of 11-12.09.2015 and the assault were made on her head by wooden
Patiya and the injuries were such that she become unconscious and in the
morning, she was found lying on the floor of her backyard and as per the
Doctor - Ritwik Patel (PW-8), she became unconscious. As per the Exhibit
P-30, the injuries suffered by the victim was grievous in nature and at the
time when she was brought before the Medical Officer, her health status was
critical and the injuries were such a nature that the life was threatened.
18. Bhuraji Tekam (PW-3), the witness in whose presence, the spot
map was prepared and blood stain soil was recovered but he has not
supported the prosecution case. Ram Singh (PW-13), Inspector a has
submitted that on 15.09.2015, Anil Pathak has prepared the spot map
(Exhibit P-13) and seized blood stain soil and simple soil from the spot. He
prepared Exhibit P-14. This witness has recorded the statement of the
victim.
19. The witness Manohar Singh Bariya (PW-12) has stated that he
arrested the appellants on 14.10.2015 and prepared arrest memo (Exhibit P-
25 to P-27) and after arrest interrogated the Saroj, Jitendra and Rajesh and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3531
7 CRA-10829-2023
their disclosure, prepared memorandum Exhibit P-22, P-23 and P-24 and
recovered and seized a wooden Patiya from Saroj and Jitendra each and
Bamboo stick from the Rajesh and prepared seizer memo (Exhibit P-1, P-2
and P-3). This witness has further stated that from the Rajesh's house, he
recovered and seized his Gamchha, his T-shirt and blue coloured pant. He
further stated that recovered articles were sent for FSL examination through
draft of Superintendent of Police (Exhibit P-36). Receipt of FSL is Exhibit
P-47. Ram Singh Bhabor (PW-13) has submitted that he sent the seized
articles on 29.10.2015 to FSL and the report is (Exhibit P-51). Jeevan Lal
Tekam (PW-6) has stated that from the Saroj Tekam, a Bamboo stick and
Patiya were recovered. From the possession of Jitendra Rahangdale, a Patiya
was recovered and seized and from the possession of Rajesh Bhalavi on
producing, a Bamboo stick from Badi was recovered. Exhibit P-1 to P-7
bears his signature.
20. As per the FSL report, human blood found in the earthen soil that
was recovered from the spot and the pillow cover recovered from the
hospital at Nagpur and Shirt, Pant and Gamchha recovered from the Rajesh
and Saroj, clothes recovered from the possession of the Jitendra. The
appellants have not furnished their explanation how human blood was found
on those articles. Though, it is clear that the blood group of the victim has
not been ascertained and on that basis his evidence cannot be used as
conclusive but supporting the prosecution, this fact is also relevant.
21. Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that appellants having
their common intention have assaulted the victim by wooden Patiya and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3531
8 CRA-10829-2023
Bamboo stick and the victim suffered injuries and the injuries were such that
she get unconscious and was lying on the floor of her backyard for whole
night and when she was brought to District Hospital, Balaghat, she was
referred to Nagpur Hospital and as the statements of witnesses, she was
admitted in the Medical Hospital, Nagpur and treated for a month. Thus, it is
clear that if the proper treatment would have not been given, the injured
would have died, thus injury caused to the victim was endangering the
human life. If the victim would have died, the appellants would have been
hold liable for the murder. Thus, the appellants have committed attempt to
murder. Hence, their conviction under Section 307 of IPC is upheld.
22. Considering the point of sentence, the victim has pardoned the
appellants. The nature of offence is private as public tranquility is not
affected by the act. Though, the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal
Code is not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 but determining the sentence, the compromise is also
relevant factor.
23. As per the record of the trial Court, the appellant Saroj Tekam was
in custody from 14.10.2015 to 06.01.2016, (2 months, 22 days), Jitendra
Rahangdale was in custody from 14.10.2015 to 04.06.2016 (7 months, 20
days) and Rajesh Bhalavi was in custody from 14.10.2015 to 14.01.2016 (3
months) and from the date of judgment by the trial Court dated 17.08.2023,
more than 1 year and 5 months, thus they have already suffered sufficient
incarceration and looking to their age and future, their jail sentence is limited
to the period already undergone.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3531
9 CRA-10829-2023
24. Thus, the appeal is partially allowed. The conviction of appellants
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed but their jail sentence
is reduced to the period already undergone with the fine amount imposed by
the trial Court.
25. The appellants- Saroj Tekam, Jitendra Rahangdale and Rajesh
Bhalavi on depositing the fine amount, if already not deposited and are not
required in any other case, they be released forthwith.
26. Let a copy of this order along with the record of trial Court be
returned back.
27. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned jail authority for
information and needful action.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
VB*
