SALIKRAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol vide his judgment dated 17-4-85 convicted the accused - appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to Rigorqus Imprisonment for four years. It is being aggrieved by it that the accused-appellant has tiled the present appeal in this Court.

(2.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, in the opinion of this Court, it was established beyond doubt from the evidence produced in the case that on the date of the incident i.e. 3-4-1984 at about 6.30 p.m. when complainant P.W. 1 Beersingh had gone to a place near a tank with the alleged purpose of answering the call of nature he was assaulted with a lathi by the accused-appellant causing him as many as 9 injuries of which three had resulted in fractures in one cervical spine, ulna and jaw. In view of the evidence produced in the case, the said aspect of the case is also not seriously disputed by the learned Counsel for the accused appellant in this appeal. What is contended by the learned Counsel is that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the defence taken by the accused-appellant that the complainant had tried to molest his wife D.W. 2 Sundariabai was sufficiently probabilised and as such the accused-appellant could not be held guilty of any offence.

(3.) In the opinion of this Court, the above said contention of the learned counsel for the accused- appellant is well founded and deserves to be accepted. There are several significant aspects of the case which lend support to the defence taken by the accused-appellant. In the first instance, it was an admitted position in the case that prior to the date of the incident there was no ilIwill between the parties and the relations between them were not strained. Yet, surprisingly, in his narration of events, both in the First Information Report Ex. P. I, as also in his evidence as P.W. 1, the complainant avoided disclosing reason for the assault made by the accused-appellant on him. Secondly, it was not only the complainant who did not disclose any reason for the incident, his brother P.W. 2 Sonsingh too tried to hide the reason by making the statement that he did not know why the incident had taken place. Thirdly, though there was nothing stated about the presence of the wife of the accused-appellant; D.W. 2 Sundariabai, in the First Information Report Ex. P. 1 lodged by the complainant, he could not avoid admitting in his evidence in the Court that the said woman had been present at the place of occurrence when the incident took place. Furthly, it was clear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W. 9 Mohanlal Pandey that at the stage of investigation he had wanted record the statement of D.W.2 Sundariabai. The Investigating Officer could not offer any satisfactory explanation as to why the statement of the said woman was not recorded by him.