NEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 11-05-2000 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Link Pendra Road, in S.T. No.148 of 1999 convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Daduram Rathore (PW-1) had been to field to answer the call of nature on 03-03-1999 between 7-30 and 8-00 A.M., the appellant arrived on the spot carrying a sickle who all of a sudden started assaulting the complainant Daduram Rathore (PW-1) with sickle causing injuries on his hands and legs. Complainant Daduram Rathore (PW-1) was taken to Senotoriam Hospital, Gaurella and admitted for treatment. On arrival of policemen from Police Station Gaurella, he informed about the incident, on the basis of which FIR (Ex. P-12) was recorded and offence under Sections 323, 324 and 506 of the IPC was registered. Daduram Rathore (PW-1) was medically examined by Dr. Raj Dulani (PW-6), vide his report Ex. P-5, found incised wounds on his right thigh, left thigh and on the palm of right hand caused by some hard and sharp object. On further query Dr. Raj Dulani (PW-6) opined that the injuries were dangerous to life and fatal. On his advise, X-ray of injuries was conducted but no bony injury was found. Further on query, Dr. Raj Dulani (PW-6) opined vide Ex. P-8 that the injuries caused to the complainant Daduram Rathore (PW-1) may be caused by the seized sickle. One sickle has been seized from the possession of the appellant vide Ex. P-1 and a spot map was prepared vide P-17. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant under Sections 323, 324 and 506 of the IPC.

(3.) The appellant was charged under Section 307 of the IPC. He denied the charge and demanded for trial. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. On examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating evidence against him, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. On completion of trial, impugned judgement was passed by which the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 307 of IPC but convicted and sentenced for minor offence as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgement.