PAPPU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is for impugning the judgment dated 27th November, 2002, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, in Criminal Appeal No. 138/02, whereby the learned Judge has affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by Judicial Magistrate, Lahar, district Bhind in Criminal Case No. 97/96 for the offence punishable under section 326 read with section 34 of IPC imposing one year's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/ - each.

(2.) THE impugned judgment has been assailed by Shri Madhukar Kulshrestha, the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioners only on two counts : - (1) That, the grievous hurts found at the person of the injured were caused by lathi and not by any sharp, penetrating, shooting or other types of dangerous weapons. Hence the conviction under section 325/34 of IPC was justified. (2) That, imposing one year's rigorous imprisonment is excessive. The jail sentence of the petitioners ought to be reduced to already undergone by them which is a period of one month and seven days. Both the cause have been countered by Shri Bharadwaj for the State.

(3.) VIDE paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment, Pappu inflicted injuries by axe, Kalian by ballam and Shyamveer by lathi. As per the statement of Dr. R.P. Verma (PW 1), two grievous hurts i.e. fractures were found at the person of injured Kishorilal on 26th October, 1996. Rest of the injuries were simple in nature. Vide paragraph 3 of the statement of this witness, it appears that the corresponding injuries of these two fractures were the injuries inflicted by blunt weapon. Only lathi was the blunt weapon which was carried by deceased Shyamveer. As per paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment, he inflicted lathi blows at right and left leg of the injured and both these fractures have been found (1) in left tebia and (2) in right fibula. Thus, both these grievous hurts appears to be caused by lathi and not by axe or ballam. In view of this, the contention of Shri Kulshrestha appears to be sustained that the conviction ought to have been under section 325/34 of IPC.