VIDYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FROM the evidence adduced in the case, it is clear that, at the time of incident, there was no dispute or quarrel between the complainant Deorao and the accused Vidya and his brother Gulab and that, the quarrel was going on between Vasanta and the accused Vidya and his brother Gulab regarding the she -goats of the accused persons having entered in his (Vasanta's) field and that the complainant Deorao had tried to intervene by telling them not to quarrel. At that time, a knife blow on his back was dealt by the accused Vidya and, so, the intention of this accused Vidya does not appear to be to cause the murder of Deorao, because, had that been the intention to murder Deorao, then he could have inflicted other injuries also on any vital part of the body, but only one injury was inflicted on the back of Deorao. Dr. Y.W. Shilledar (P.W. l) had examined the injury of Deorao on his back and, according to his version, he was not in a position to opine whether this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death or not. Dr. S.K. Dubey (P.W.2) had taken the x -ray of the chest of Deorao and, according to him, on examining the x -ray plate, he had found that there was partial collapse of right lung with pneumothorax and surgical emphysema in upper chest wall. According to Dr. S.K. Dubey (P.W.2) this partial collapse could prove dangerous to life.

(2.) FROM the version of Dr. Y.W. Shilledar (P.W. l), it is clear that he had referred Deorao to the District Hospital, Chhindwara, for further treatment but the Doctor, who had treated him in the District Hospital. Chhindwara, and who had done the exploration of the injury, was not examined on behalf of the prosecution, and the Doctor who had treated him, was the best person to explain whether the injury inflicted on the back of Deorao, had caused any damage to the vital organ, . i.e. lung, or not. . Thus, after considering the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the accused Vidya had the intention to commit the murder of Deorao, because only one injury was inflicted on his back with a knife, and also because there were no strained relations between the complainant Deorao and the accused Vidya prior to this incident. For the aforesaid reasons, the offence commited by the accused - appellant Vidya would not fall under section 307 of L P.C., but it would fall under section 324 of LP.C.

(3.) AS regards the giving of the benefit of the Pobation of Offenders Act, in my opinion, this is not a fit case in which the appellant Vidya can be given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. For the aforesaid reasons the conviction of the appellant Vidya under section 307 of LP.C. is converted into one under section 324 of I.P .C. The appellant Vidya has been sentenced to undergo R.L for two years. However, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence from R.I. for two years to R.I. for one year only under section 324 of I.P.C. along with a fine of Rs.500/ - and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for two months. Appeal partly allowed.