VINOD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 10.4.1997 passed by the learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.1013/1992, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 or 307 read with section 34 of IPC and each sentenced for 3 years' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) PROSECUTION's story, in short, is that, on 1.4.1992, at about 4 p.m. in the evening, the complainant Golu Yadav (P.W.4) was standing near the shop of Mohan in the locality of Riz Road, Jabalpur. The appellants Sanjay and Vinod came to him and called him. Both of them had Baka in their hands. When the complainant asked as to why he was detained, the appellants started assaulting him by those Bakas. The appellant Sanjay assaulted him by a Baka on his head for three times. Thereafter, on his back also. He sustained some injuries on his ankle joint, fingers of his right hand and on other places. A boy having beard had also assaulted him. Rakesh, Raju and Rakesh Pillai, who were standing near the spot, ran to save the complainant. Thereafter, he was taken to the Police Station Cantt., Jabalpur, where he had lodged an FIR, Ex.P/8. He was sent for his medico legal examination and treatment to the Government hospital. Dr. Anil Dubey (P.W.1) examined the complainant Golu at Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur at about 5.30 p.m. and found four incised wounds to him. Out of them, three were on the head and one set of wounds was near the small and middle fingers of the right hand. Three abrasions were also found, which were situated on right thigh and right leg. Dr. Dubey gave his report, Ex.P/1 and referred the complainant for his x-ray examination. He was admitted in the hospital. After due investigation, a charge- sheet was filed before the JMFC, Jabalpur, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately, it was transferred to the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant No.2 has submitted that if evidence given by the complainant is perused then, a lot of contradictions are visible in his evidence. In the FIR, he alleged against two known persons and one unknown beard person, whereas in the trial Court, he told about four persons without any basis. THE entire allegation of the complainant was against the appellant Sanjay, who had lodged an FIR against the complainant for teasing his sister. THEre was enmity between the parties and therefore, the complainant implicated all the friends of the appellant Sanjay unnecessarily. No common intention of the appellant Vinod is proved with the appellant Sanjay. THErefore, the appellant No.2 could not be convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC either directly or with help of section 34 of IPC. At the most, he could be convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC. He remained in the custody for one month and 8 days. He is the first offender and he was of tender age, at the time of the incident. Under such circumstances, he shall not be sent to the jail again.