MAUJILAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, in S.T. No.38/92, decided on 29.11.1995.

(2.) Appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC for causing life threatening injuries to Hemraj by means of sharp object and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default imprisonment for one year. Appellant has been further convicted under Section 325 of I.P.C. for causing grievous hurt to Ramdayal and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.300/-, in default imprisonment for six months, by the impugned judgment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) According to prosecution, on 26.05.91, about 8 'O'clock at night at village Pachama, when complainant Ramdayal was in his field alongwith his brother Parmu alias Hemraj and wife Narbadibai, appellant Maujilal came there with a 'Tabal' in his hand. Appellant asked Ramdayal, whether he was purchasing his land from Bhole Baniya. Though Ramdayal denied, appellant gave him 'Tabal' blows on his scalp and scapular region. When his younger brother Parmu @ Hemraj tried to intervene, appellant gave him a 'Tabal' blow on his scalp. As a result, both Ramdayal and Parmu @ Hemraj got seriously injured and fell down. Injured Parmu @ Hemraj fell unconscious as a result of head injuries. The FIR of the incident was lodged by Ramdayal at police post Salichowka, on the basis of which an offence was registered at P.S. Gadarwara against the appellant and two co-accused persons and was investigated. Injured Ramdayal and Parmu @ Hemraj were sent for medical examination. The incised injury caused to Hemraj, which also resulted in depressed fracture of his right parietal bone, was reported to be dangerous to life. The injury caused to complainant Ramdayal in his clavicle region, being a fracture of clavicle bone, was also reported to be grievous in nature. Blood stained earth and plain earth were seized from the spot. The spot map was also prepared. During investigation, 'Tabal' used in the commission of the offence was seized at the instance of the appellant. Appellant's father and brother namely, Halkeveer and Jhalkan were also said to be present and hiding at the time of occurrence. After due investigation, appellant and co-accused Halkeveer and Jhalkan were prosecuted under Sections 307, 324, 447, 34 of I.P.C. and were put to trial