MUNSHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4/10/1997 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in ST No.83/1996, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-

(2.) THE prosecution's case, in short, is that on 4.6.1995 Daulat Singh (PW-4) Nakedar of the Forest Department posted at Village Khamalpur Outpost went to extinguish the fire which broke out in the forest. He came back to the Outpost at about 7-7:30 PM alongwith his companion Dinanath Chouhan (PW-9). THEreafter they were preparing the accounts related to tendupatta in the building of the Outpost. In the meantime all the appellants came to the Outpost armed with sticks. THEy said something in their local language and thereafter they assaulted the complainant Daulat Singh with sticks. THE complainant Daulat Singh sustained many injuries. THE witness Dinanath Chouhan ran away and he succeeded in hiding himself from the culprits. After the incident, Dinanath Chouhan came back and took the complainant Daulat Singh to the concerned Range Officer Ranipur on motorcycle. THEreafter Daulat Singh lodged an FIR Ex.P-14A on 5.6.1995 at about 9:00 AM in the morning. He was referred for his medico legal examination. Dr. K.S.Ahirwar (PW-5) examined the victim Daulat Singh at Primary Health Centre Dongari and gave his report Ex.P-16. He found various injuries caused by hard & blunt object and hard & rough object at nine places of the body of the victim Daulat Singh specifically on head, forehead, left jaw, scapula region, chest, hands, right knee and left leg. THE victim was referred for his X-ray examination. Dr. P.K.Tiwari (PW-8) after taking the X-ray Ex.P-18 gave his report Ex.P-17. He found fractures on 5th and 6th right ribs of the victim Daulat Singh. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Betul, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Betul and ultimately it was transferred to the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Betul.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the Court below has not committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellants-accused, therefore no interference is warranted from the side of this Court.