HARISINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant accused has directed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 13.5.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Sonkatch, District Dewas, in S.T. No.164/2002 whereby they have been convicted and sentenced under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC for RI of one year with fine of Rs. 1,000.00 in default of depositing the fine amount for further 3 months RI.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dt. 26.5.2002 at about 9 o'clock the victim Heeralal was going towards his boring hole from Gandharvpuri Kachi Mohalla, on the way appellants lashed with sticks accompanied with Heeralal intercepted him and asked to give them land of his share on his refusal they started bathing by means of stick on him on his head and leg. resultantly, he sustained the injuries with bleedings. Subsequent to it the acquitted co-accused Narbatsingh and Jasmatsingh lashed with Salia (the specific type of the stick which is used in the bullock cart) came there and thereafter the appellants as well as the aforesaid both the persons with intention to cause death of the victim badly beaten him. The victim was rescued by Takesingh, Motisingh and Bhagwat. On sustaining the aforesaid injuries the victim became unconscious. Subsequent to it the victim was taken to some square by the appellants accompanied with the acquitted co-accused where again his beating was carried out. Thereafter the victim was taken to the Police Station Sonkatch, where he lodged the report Ex.P/1. He was sent to the Hospital where his medical examination was carried out. The MLC report was prepared and the X-Ray of some injury was advised. After providing the primary treatment, he was referred to the District Hospital Dewas, for further treatment. On carrying out the X-ray the fracture of the tibia bone was revealed. After recording the interrogatory statement of the prosecution witnesses and holding the other investigation, the appellants along with the acquitted co- accused were charge sheeted for the offence of Section 307,341,506 and 34 of the IPC.

(3.) SHRI R.K.Vyas, learned appearing Counsel of the appellant after taking me through the record of the Trial Court along with the evidence led by the prosecution and the exhibited documents so also the impugned judgment argued that the story put forth by the prosecution has not been supported by any independent source of the evidence and in view of the enmity factor between the parties on account of their ancestral agricultural land unless such story put forth by the victim is supported by the independent source of the evidence the prosecution story could not be relied on to hold the conviction against the appellant. In continuation he also argued that the alleged injury or the fracture was not caused to the victim by any of these appellants. The same was sustained by the victim on falling down on the stone and not by any act of the appellants. So in such premises, the liability to cause such injury and fracture could not be placed on the shoulder of the appellants. He also argued that on appreciation of evidence the aforesaid co-accused have been acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt then in that circumstance on the basis of the same set of evidence, the impugned conviction of the appellants could not be upheld, as they are also entitled to extend the same benefit and firstly prayed to extend the acquittal to the appellants. In alternate he argued that appellants being agriculturist did not possess any criminal antecedents except the present matter and they have already suffered the mental agony of this case in last 10 years. During this period they also appeared on various dates before the Trial Court as well as during pendency of this appeal in compliance of the order before this Court and they are the only bread winner of their family and on sending them again to jail for facing the remaining jail sentence in comparison to them, their family has to suffer in a lot and prayed to reduce their awarded jail sentence up to the period of 6 days which they have already suffered during pendency of the trial between 21.2.2002 to 26.2.2002 and prayed to allow this appeal accordingly.