IMPORTANT POINT
Inflicting injury of fracture or dislocation of bone causing great pain and suffering is grievous hurt warranting conviction u/s 325.
In an occurrence of sudden fight and in a fit of passion, imprisonment of 7 years is excessive.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 325 r/w section 320(7) – PW-2 sustaining fracture or dislocation of bone causing great pain and suffering – Grievous hurt – Conviction u/s 325 justified. (Para 11)
       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 325 – Sentence – Depends upon nature of offence, conduct of the accused and unprotected state of victim – High Court imposing sentence of 7 years – In view of the occurrence being a sudden fight and in a fit of passion imprisonment of 7 years is excessive – Reduced to 3 years. (Para 12)
       Facts of the case:
       Trial court convicted accused-Vipatlal and Raju under Sections 323 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC respectively and each of them were sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Raju was also convicted under Section 341 IPC and a fine of Rs.500/-imposed on him with default clause. Accused Tularam and accused appellant-Sakharam were convicted under Sections 302, 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC respectively and each of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2,000/-with default clause. They were also convicted under Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC, 307 IPC respectively and each of them were sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- with default clause.
       High Court partly allowed appellant-Sakharam’s appeal setting aside his conviction under Section 302 IPC and modified his conviction under Section 307 IPC as conviction under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-.
       This appeal assails the correctness of the conviction of the appellant-Sakharam under Section 325 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him.
       Finding of the Court:
       While conviction u/s 325 is justified, sentence of 7 years is excessive.
       Result: Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 01.08.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.935 of 2004 whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal thereby modifying the conviction of the appellant-Sakharam under Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-with default clause.

3. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that complainant-Ramnath (PW-1) lives in village-Devrimaal and runs a flourmill and also an agriculturist. On 09.06.2002 at about 6.00 p.m., when Ramnath-PW-1 was working at his flourmill, Raju came to PW-1’s flourmill and asked him whether Ramnath called Jogi Lodhi for a meal in Jhalar function to which the complainant replied in the negative and on this issue there was a wordy altercation between them. At about 7.30 p.m., when Ramnath was returning back from his flourmill in front of one Prahlad Vishwakarma’s house, Raju wrongfully restrained him and started quarrelling with him. At that time Vipatlal-grandfather of Raju came thereon with lathi and hit the complainant-Ramnath’s head. On hearing the hues and cries of the fight, from the complainant’s side, his nephew Santu Lodhi (PW-2) and his younger brother Badri Lodhi came to the spot and from the side of the accused Raju’s father-Tularam armed with a sharp iron rod (Ballam) and appellant-Sakharam armed with lathi came to the spot. Accused Tularam pierced his Ballam on the left side of the chest of Badri, when complainant-Ramnath(PW-1) tried to prevent, Tularam also attacked Ramnath on his left shoulder with the Ballam. Appellant-Sakharam caused two lathi blows on the head of Santu-PW-2 due to which he became unconscious. Raju threw Ramnath (PW-1) on the ground due to which Ramnath (PW-1) sustained head injuries. On hearing the noise, Jogi Lodhi (PW-10), Mahasingh (PW-5), Shivsingh Gond (PW-8) came to the spot and intervened to stop the fight. Badri succumbed to injuries.

4. On the complaint lodged by complainant-Ramnath (PW-1), FIR was registered in FIR No.58 of 2002 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 302 and 34 IPC at police station Chand, District-Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh. Injured Santu (PW-2) was sent to the hospital for treatment. ASI-V.P. Mishra (PW-16) took up the investigation and after due investigation chargesheet was filed against Tularam, appellant-Sakharam, Raju and Vipatlal.

5. Upon consideration of evidence, Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwada, held that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Trial court vide its judgment dated 28.05.2004 convicted accused-Vipatlal and Raju under Sections 323 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC respectively and each of them were sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Raju was also convicted under Section 341 IPC and a fine of Rs.500/-imposed on him with default clause. Accused Tularam and accused appellant-Sakharam were convicted under Sections 302, 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC respectively and each of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2,000/-with default clause. They were also convicted under Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC, 307 IPC respectively and each of them were sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- with default clause.

6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded to them by the Additional Sessions Judge, the accused-Tularam and appellant-Sakharam preferred criminal appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Jabalpur. Conviction of accused-Tularam under Section 302 IPC was confirmed. High Court vide impugned judgment dated 01.08.2013 partly allowed appellant-Sakharam’s appeal setting aside his conviction under Section 302 IPC and modified his conviction under Section 307 IPC as conviction under Section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 816

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA T.S. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.SAKHARAM – APPELLANTVERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. – RESPONDENTSCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1079 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8627/2014)Decided On : 19-08-2015

IMPORTANT POINTInflicting injury of fracture or dislocation of bone causing great pain and suffering is grievous hurt warranting conviction u/s 325.In an occurrence of sudden fight and in a fit of passion, imprisonment of 7 years is excessive.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
SAKHARAM – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1079 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8627/2014)
Decided On : 19-08-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Inflicting injury of fracture or dislocation of bone causing great pain and suffering is grievous hurt warranting conviction u/s 325.
In an occurrence of sudden fight and in a fit of passion, imprisonment of 7 years is excessive.