RAMAIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.5.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Janjgir District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 210/1991 convicting the accused/appellant No.1 Ramaiya under Sections 304 (Part-II) and 323/34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.500 u/s 304 (Part-II) and rigorous imprisonment for four months with fine of Rs.300 u/s 323 IPC whereas accused/appellant No.2 Naresh has been convicted under section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and pay fine of Rs.300, plus default stipulations.

(2.) FACTS of the case in brief are that on 10.7.1988 at about 10 a.m. FIR Ex. P-11 was lodged by Budhram (PW-7) alleging that on that day at about 6.30 a.m. when he had gone to his field and thrown away the thorns lying there, on which accused/appellant slapped him saying as to why he had thrown the thorns in his field. Thereafter, he got back home and narrated the incident to his brother Pardeshi and father Pitamber. When he was going to police station to lodge the report along with his brother, father and sister-in-law, on the way the appellants along with Arjun and Ajit stopped and assaulted them with spade and rapli saying "finish them" as a result of which he sustained injuries on his chest and back whereas Pardeshi suffered injuries on left arm and Juganbai on head which resulted in bleeding. It is alleged that the incident was witnessed by Gambhir, Ratan and several other people and they had intervened in the matter. Based on this report, offences under Sections 341, 323 and 506-B read with section 34 were registered against the present appellants in addition to Ajit and Arjun. As Jugan Bai died on 14.7.1988, offence under Section 302 IPC was also registered against them. As during investigation accused Arjun also expired, the challan was filed against the three accused persons i.e. the appellants herein and one Ajit under Sections 341, 323, 34, 506-B, 326 and 302 IPC. Court below however framed the charge under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC and the accused/persons.

(3.) ) and Pitamber (PW-3) the injury was not caused by accused Ramaiya. He submits that seizure witness Gambhir (PW-1) has not supported the case of the prosecution and thus looking to the evidence collected by the prosecution, the accused/appellants are entitled for acquittal. Lastly, he submits that the incident had taken place 24 years back and that the appellants have already remained in jail for about seven months and therefore their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7. Counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that Pitamber (PW-3), Pardeshi (PW-6), Budhram (PW-7) and Ramchand (PW-11) have duly supported the case of the prosecution and minor contradictions if any in their statements, are to be ignored. He submits that the Court below has already taken a lenient view by convicting the accused/appellants under Section 304 (Part-II) instead of Section 302 IPC and therefore, no interference with the findings recorded by the Court below is called for.