PAPPU ALIAS CHANDRABHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal arises out of a judgment dated 17-7-1997 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, in Sessions Trial No. 391/ 1996 holding the accused/appellant guilty of offence under Section 307 and sentencing him to R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 300/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) Briefly narrated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 28-8-1996, accused/appellant caused Kulhadi (axe) injury to complainant Ramesh while he was grazing his cattle. It is said that accused/appellant reached there and asked complainant Ramesh (P.W. 1) as why his cattle had grazed in his field yesterday. When the complainant tried to explain the position, he was assaulted by accused/appellant repeatedly for six times on vital parts of the body. According to the complainant the first blow landed on head, the second blow on the back of the head and the third and the fourth blows on both legs. When the complainant fell down after raising a cry he was again assaulted by the accused/appellant on his left arm resulting in severance of that limb. It is said that hearing the cry, Bhaiyalal (P.W. 2) and Shantilal (P.W. 3) reached the spot. It is also said that these witnesses were threatened by the accused/appellant and, therefore, Shantilal (P.W. 3) left the spot and informed Dataar (P.W. 4), uncle of the complainant, about the incident. P.W. 4 reached the spot immediately and found the complainant lying injured. The complainant was taken to police station, he lodged the report and thereafter his dying declaration was recorded by an Executive Magistrate/Naib Tehsildar. On investigation, the prosecution put up a challan against the accused/appellant and two other persons namely Kamarji Yadav and Dashrath Singh Yadav for offences under Section 307/34, IPC. On careful appreciation of evidence, only the accused/appellant was found guilty and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the offence was not intended, it resulted from a sudden scuffle between the complainant and the appellant. It is also said that though the complainant was caused serious injuries, but in absence of intention, it would not be an offence under Section 307, IPC. Alternatively, in case of affirmation of impugned judgment, it is submitted that this Court may take a lenient view on the question of sentence as the accused/appellant has undergone three years of sentence including remission. It is also submitted that the incident took place 7 years back and at this distance of time it may not be warranted in the interest of justice to send the accused to jail for serving out the rest of sentence.