Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. P. KHARE
DHANIRAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 92 Of 1988
Decided On : 01/30/1999
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 307/149, 324/149, 325/149, 148 IPC - FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE INVOLVING A DISPUTE OVER WATER USAGE RESULTING IN A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION LEADING TO INJURIES ON BOTH SIDES - ANALYSIS OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE, WITNESS TESTIMONIES, AND DEFENSE ARGUMENTS - SCRUTINY OF INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THE ACCUSED AND THEIR EXPLANATION - DISCUSSION ON THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE EXPLANATION OF INJURIES ON THE ACCUSED - DETERMINATION OF THE AGGRESSOR PARTY AND ITS IMPACT ON THE PROSECUTION CASE - REASSESSMENT OF THE CHARGES AND SENTENCES BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND LEGAL PRECEDENTS - FINAL DECISION INVOLVING CONVICTION UNDER SECTIONS 324/149 AND 325/149 IPC WITH REDUCED SENTENCES.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute over water usage between Brijlal (P.W. 1) and the accused persons escalated into a physical altercation, resulting in injuries to Brijlal, his brother Bhaulal (P.W. 3), and the accused Jhanaklal and Ruplal. The incident occurred in the field of Brijlal and Bhaulal, and the accused claimed they were acting in self-defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused were the aggressors and had come armed to the field of Brijlal and Bhaulal, causing injuries to them. The injuries sustained by the accused were likely inflicted by Brijlal and Bhaulal in self-defense during the incident.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused were the aggressors or acted in self-defense. 2. The significance of the injuries sustained by the accused and their explanation in relation to the prosecution case. 3. The appropriate charges and sentences to be imposed based on the evidence and legal principles.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the medical evidence, witness testimonies, and defense arguments to determine the sequence of events and the aggressor party. 2. The court analyzed the injuries sustained by the accused and found that they were likely caused by the prosecution party in self-defense, given that the accused were the aggressors. 3. The court referred to various Supreme Court precedents to establish the legal principles governing the explanation of injuries on the accused and the significance of determining the aggressor party. 4. The court held that the prosecution was not obliged to explain the injuries on the accused in all cases, and that the non-explanation of injuries does not automatically lead to the rejection of the prosecution case. 5. The court considered the totality of the evidence and the circumstances of the case to conclude that the accused were the aggressors and that the injuries sustained by them did not negate the prosecution case.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal. The conviction under Section 307/149 IPC was set aside, and the accused were convicted under Sections 324/149 and 325/149 IPC. The sentence of each appellant was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count, to run concurrently, considering the delay in the appeal process and the injuries sustained by the accused.
( 1 ) THE five appellants have been convicted under Ss. 148 and 307/149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and five years respectively.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that there was a dispute between Brijlal (P. W. 1) and the accused persons regarding the use of water from a tank for irrigation purposes. On 8-12-1986 Brijlal (P. W. 1) and his brother Bhaulal (P. W. 3) were working in their field in village Sawargaon with their family members. At about 3 p. m. Pustkalabai (P. W. 5) daughter of Brijlal (P. W. 1) went to take some drinking water from a nearby well and came back shouting that she has been assaulted by accused-Dhaniram by a lathi. All the five accused persons also came chasing her. They were armed with barchi, axe and lathi. They started causing injuries to Brijlal (P. W. 1 ). He sustained eight injuries. Bhaulal (P. W. 3) was also attacked by them and he received eleven injuries. They became unconscious on the spot. Mungabai, wife of Brijlal (P. W. 1) also sustained injury while saving her husband. The incident was witnessed by Kishore (P. W. 2), son of Brijlal (P. W. 1), Pustkalabai (P. W. 5) and Pawanlal (P. W. 4) Kishore (P. W. 2) lodged the report Ex. P-2 at Tirodi police station at 6 p. m. on the same date. The injured persons were sent to the hospital for examination. Brijlal (P. W. 1) and Bhaulal (P. W. 3) remained admitted in the hospital from 9-12-1986 to 26-12-1986. There was fracture in the middle finger of the left hand of Brijlal (P. W. 1 ). According to the prosecution the accused persons attempted to commit murder of Brijlal (P. W. 1) and Bhaulal (P. W. 3) in prosecution of the common object of their unlawful assembly.
( 3 ) THE accused persons pleaded not guilty. Their defence is that the complainant party was the aggressor and caused injuries to accused-Jhanaklal and Ruplal. Both of them sustained four injuries each. They acted in self-defence. It is also pleaded that accused Tikaram and Tukaram were not on the spot.
( 4 ) THE trial Court held that the accused persons were the aggressors. They have been convicted and sentenced as stated at the outset.
( 5 ) IN this appeal it is argued that the prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries on accused-Jhanaklal and Ruplal and thus they have suppressed the true genesis and origin of the incident. It is reiterated that they were exercising their right of private defence.
( 6 ) IT would be proper to deal with the medical evidence first. Dr. S. R. Soni (P. W. 6) and Dr. K. K. Khosla (P. W. 7) have been examined. From their evidence it is proved that the injuries found on the persons of the complainant and accused side are as under :- 1. Brijlal (P. W. 1) Ex. P-6 1. Incised wound 1. 2" x 0. 2" on the right side of neck muscle deep directing backwards. Transverse. 2. Lacerated wound 1" x 0. 3" on the left side of head at frontal region directing antero posterior. 3. Contusion 1. 2" x 1. 2" on the upper part of the right shoulder. 4. Lacerated wound 2. 5" x 0. 8" on the lateral and back side of right forearm. Transverse. 5. Incised wound 2" x 0. 2" on the back side of chest at right side at the level of 10th rib directing upwards and backwards. 6. Incised wound 0. 5" x 0. 5" at right interphalangeal region.
( 7 ) LACERATED wound 1. 3" x 0. 3" on the left ring finger at back and medial side on first phalanx.
( 8 ) CONTUSION 0. 8" x 0. 8" on the back of left middle finger at first phalanx. Ex. P-12 + 13 Crack fracture proximal phalanx middle finger (left) 2. Bhaulal (P. W. 3) Ex. P-4 1. Lacerated wound 1. 4" x 0. 8" on the front side of right wrist joint. Transverse muscle deep. 2. Incised wound 1. 5" x 0. 5" on the left side of neck directing upwards and backwards muscle deep. 3. Lacerated wound 1. 6" x 0. 5" on the left side of head at frontal and parietal region directing upwards and backwards. 4. Incised wound 1. 3" x 0. 2" on the parietal region and head of left side directing antero posterior. 5
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
