CHUNNILAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction dated 14.8.1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 68/96 of First Additional Judge to Sessions Judge, Vidisha thereby convicted appellant under section 307, IPC and sentenced him to three years' RI and a fine of Rs. 2000/ , appellant has come up in appeal seeking redress praying for setting aside the aforesaid sentence and conviction.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the prosecution of the appellant shorn of details lie in a narrow compass. On 23.9.1994 at about 9.30 a.m. when complainant Jitendra Singh was taking to task his younger brother, appellant and co accused Manohar Lal intervened. Appellant assaulted the complainant with spear and Manohar with lathi. Mother of complainant intervened. He lodged police report (Ex. P 3) at Police Station Sironj. Complainant was referred for medical examination of his injuries and Dr. S.A. Thakur (PW 1), who examined him, found, one incised wound 3" x 1/2" x 1/2" on frontal region of skull and an abrasion 2" x 1/4" on left leg. Injury No. 1 of the skull was caused by hard and sharp object.

(3.) THE learned counsel of the appellant has further contended that injury of the skull is not possible by spear. Although in this case the weapon of offence has not been seized or produced, but from the evidence of complainant, it can be gathered that it was not a pointed object but fitted with an iron tip of trangular in shape. In such a situation, it is possible that the injury indicated in the medical report might have been caused with a weapon as detailed by the complainant in his cross examination. Except complainant, no other prosecution witness has corroborated the prosecution story. However, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the complainant, from whose evidence it is established that appellant had caused injury by spear on his head. However, in absence of intention to cause death, the offence established against the appellant is not under section 307 or 326 IPC but it is falling under the category of an offence under section 324 IPC. It is not disputed that co accused was acquitted because of compromise with the complainant from the offence under section 323 read with section 34 IPC by the trial Court on 19.7.1996 and this appellant was also acquitted of the offence under section 323 read with section 34 IPC. However, other part of the compromise was not allowed as the offence with which the appellant was. charged under section 307 IPC was not compoundable.