SUGAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted u/Ss. 394 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years and 7 years rigorous imprisonment, respectively with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. The appellant along with co -accused Shivcharan was tried for the alleged offences. The allegation against the petitioner has been that while the complainant was going on his cycle on 10.11.89, the appellant assaulted the complainant by means of a lathi and having snatched his Atlas cycle, fled away from the spot. Due to the assault, the complainant suffered fracture of right humerus bone. A report was lodged by the complainant and later the cycle was seized from the possession of co -accused Shivcharan.

(2.) AFTER the trial, co -accused Shivcharan was convicted u/s. 411 I.P.C. Considering the age and the nature of the allegation against the co -accused, he was sentenced to the period of custody already undergone by him.

(3.) SINCE the prosecution could not corroborate the allegation of the looting of the property, in view of this, an offence u/s. 394 and 397 I.P.C. cannot be said to be proved. But in view of the statement of the complainant that the appellant had assaulted him by means of lathi and the injuries were corroborated by medical evidence as well, which resulted into fracture of right humerus bone, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the commission of offence u/s. 325 I.P.C. against the appellant.