SHESH RAO Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal the accused-appellant challenged the conviction for offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of fine further imprisonment of 6 months RI imposed by trial Court, which has been assailed in the instant appeal.

(2.) AS per prosecution case an incident took place on 2.8.1998. The accused-appellant had caused injuries to injured Dhannu (PW 2). It is also the prosecution case that there was dispute between accused-appellant and injured Dhannu (PW 2) over temporary shade, which was laid by the injured Dhannu. Accused-appellant Shesh Rao claimed it was laid over his land. On the date of incident at about 8.00 p.m. accused-appellant asked Dhannu to remove his temporary shade. An exchange of hot words and abuse took place and prosecution alleged that accused-appellant inflicted a knife blow on abdominal portion of Dhannu (PW 2). Incident was witnessed by Dasri Bai (PW 4), Ram Rao Village Kotwar (PW 1) was informed. Dhannu was taken to the Hospital, given treatment. One injury caused by sharp edged weapon was found in abdominal portion in medical report (P-7) of injured Dhannu. Injury was found to be of grievous nature and was caused within 12 hours of the examination. Incised wound, two inches deep was found. Surgery was performed. As per information memo (P-2) furnished by the accused, a Knife was seized as per Seizure Memo (P-3). ;

(3.) SHRI Ajay Tamrakar, learned P.L. appearing for the State has supported the conviction and sentence imposed. He has further submitted that facts have been properly appreciated and no interference is called for in the conviction and sentence imposed. Ram Rao (PW1) has not supported the prosecution case. We are left with the statement of Dhannu (PW 2) and Dasri Bai (PW 4). Dhannu (PW 2), injured person has stated that accused abused him and was asking to remove the temporary shade laid by him and thereafter had inflicted injury with the help of knife. It has been further stated that thereafter Thengu had beaten him with the help of fist and he fell down. A First Information Report (P-1) was lodged. He has claimed ownership of disputed land. Suggestion was put that there was altercation of the injured Dhannu (PW 2) with Ms. Urmila though he has denied suggestion that he inflicted any injury on the head of Urmila. However, this fact has been admitted that injury was inflicted by Dhannu, by Dasri Bai (PW 4) wife of Dhannu. Dasri Bai (PW 4) has clearly deposed in Para 6 of her deposition that stick injury was inflicted by her husband, as Urmila was standing nearby. Further, a close scrutiny of the deposition of Dasri Bai indicates that accused and complainant Dhannu scuffled with each other. Both had scuffled and beaten each other, is the statement of Dasri Bai (PW 4) in Para 1 and it is also stated by Dhannu (PW 2) in Para 16 of his deposition that Urmila remained in Multai Hospital for about 3 months. Thus, it is clear that an altercation had taken place and Urmila (DW 1) has also suffered injury at the time of incident itself caused by complainant Dhannu (PW 2). True it is that injury was caused to Dhannu (PW 2) with the help of a knife by the accused-appellant in the course of altercation. In the circumstances of the case, it is clear that there was quarrel between the complainant as well as accused-appellant. Complainant Dhannu (PW 2) has suffered an injury, which was inflicted with the help of a knife by the accused-appellant and complainant had inflicted injury over Urmila (DW 1) with the help of stick, injury was suffered by her on the head.