BALVINDER Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/ accused has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr. P. C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29. 10. 2004 passed by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S. T. No. 175/1990 convicting and sentencing him under Section 326 and 324 of i. P. C. with a direction to undergo RI for two year with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of it further two months RI in the earlier section while RI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of it further one month RI in later.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the deceased jeevan Lal accompanied with Radheshyam (P. W. 8), Jagdish (P. W. 9), ramdas (P. W. 10), Subhash (P. W. 11) and Banne Singh came to Bhopal from Delhi to carry out the work of false ceiling and decoration in the shop of one Gulshan Chhawda situated at Hamidia Road Bhopal. During that period they were residing in a tenanted premises situated at 184-C, Sector indrapuri, Bhopal. On 6. 1. 1990 at about 11. 00 O' Clock in the night the deceased Jeevan accompanied with above mentioned persons and one girish (P. W. 7) sitting in a room were taking their foods, at the same time appellant Balvinder knocked the door and asked them not to smoke Bidi and do not discuss any thing loudly, on which Jeevanlal reacted and asked him to say him whatever he wants. In such altercation some exchange of abuses took place between them, on which after giving a threat to see him the appellant went away. After near about 20 minutes he accompanied with ranjit Singh, Shaktidhar Pandey and Pradeep Kumar Agrawal the acquitted accused came there and by knocking the door called Jeevanlal out side. On his coming they caused injury on his stomach by means of sward and also beaten him by kicks and fists. At the same time the appellant caused the injury on right thigh of Radheshyam (P. W. 8) by means of sward and also beaten him by kicks and fists. The persons present in the room rescued them and brought to Hamidia hospital where on medical examination their mlc reports were prepared. On receiving the information of the incident the police also came to hospital and recorded Dehati Nalisi (Ex. P. 12) at the instance of Radhe Shyam (P. W. 8), on which first information report (Ex. P. 18) was registered at police station Piplani against the appellant and other accused for the offence under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Looking to the serious condition of Jeevanlal he was referred to senior doctor, who also examined and carried out his surgery. According to MLC report and surgical notes Jeevanlal sustained step wound with bleeding on the right side below the rips on the stomach and one abrasion along with one lacerated wound on the head. Radheshyam also sustained incise wound on his thigh. The victim Jeevanlal was discharged from such hospital on 31. 1. 1990 and was taken to Delhi by his father Motilal (P. W. 1), where on 23. 3. 1990 in Ram Manohar Lohiya hospital Jeevanlal died, on which his father Motial gave a report (Ex. P. 1) in writing to the Police Station Piplani, on which in the aforesaid registered offence, Section 304 and 307 r/w section 34 of IPC were also inserted. After holding investigation the appellant along with other co-accused was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offence.

(3.) AFTER committing the case to the Sessions Court, on framing the charges of Section 302 and 324 of IPC against the appellant and the charges under Section 302 and 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the other acquitted accused they abjured the same, on which the trial was held. On appreciation it was held that Jeevanlal died due to the disease of hepatitis (jaundice) and not to the injury sustained in the alleged incident. On further appreciation by acquitting the other accused from all the charges and also the appellant from the charge of Section 302 IPC held him guilty under section 326 and 324 of IPC for causing the injuries to deceased Jeevanlal and Radheshyam (P. W. 8) respectively and punished him as mentioned above. Being dissatisfied with the same the appellant has come forward to this Court with this appeal.