LAXMINARAYAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22-2-2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No. 245/2012 convicting the appellant under Section 326, IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer 4 years' RI and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 1 month, the appellant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purposes of disposal of this appeal since in elaboration they have been mentioned in Para 3 of the impugned judgment. For ready reference, it would be suffice to mention that the charges punishable under Section 326 and also under Section 506 Later Part IPC were framed against the accused/appellant, which he denied and requested for the trial. The prosecution thereafter, examined their witnesses and also proved certain documents. The defence of the appellant is that the complainant was molesting his daughter and when he objected and made complaint to him in that regard, he has been falsely roped. In support of his defence, the accused examined his own daughter Kirti as D.W. 1.

(2.) The learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence placed on record came to hold that the charge under Section 506 Later Part IPC has not been proved and eventually acquitted the accused/appellant from the said charge. However, the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that the appellant did commit the offence under Section 326, IPC and eventually convicted him and passed the sentence which I have mentioned hereinabove. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that from the very beginning the defence of the appellant is that because the complainant-injured Jitendra Kumar Choure (P.W. 1) was molesting and passing lewd words as well as commenting upon his daughter Kirti alias Pushpa (D.W. 1) and when he made objection to the complainant, he became annoyed and gave threat to falsely implicate him. It has been further contended by learned Counsel that in support of his defence which the appellant has taken he also examined his own daughter Kirti alias Pushpa as D.W. 1. Thus, it has been put forth by learned Counsel that looking to the defence which has been taken by the appellant, due credence should have been given to it and the evidence of the defence witness should not be ignored merely because the witness has been examined from the defence side. By putting a deep dent on the evidence as well as the story of the prosecution, it has been submitted by learned Counsel that as per the prosecution's own case the incident had occurred on 8-3-2012 at 10 p.m. but for the best reasons known to the prosecution the injured was sent for medical examination after more than 24 hours since he was sent on 9-3-2012 at 11.55 p.m. In this regard, my attention has been drawn to the evidence of the MLC Doctor, Dr. Shobhana Choukse (P.W. 10). Learned Counsel has also invited my attention to the contradiction and omissions which have appeared in the testimony of Jitendra Kumar Choure (P.W. 1). Hence, it has been submitted by learned Counsel that looking to the overall evidence placed on record as well as the defence taken by the appellant the case appears to be cooked against the appellant and therefore, it has been prayed that this appeal be allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant be set aside.