High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
D. P. S. CHAUHAN
BABLOO ALIAS SUJEET - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL 603 Of 1993
Decided On : 09/01/1994
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 307, 324, 326, 360, 361 IPC - [ACT-SECTION LIST] - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FOR CAUSING INJURIES - INTERPRETATION OF GRIEVOUS HURT - APPLICATION OF SECTION 324 IPC - REDUCTION OF SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant Babloo was convicted under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to Shailendra and sentenced to 5 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500. He was also convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to Motilal and Ganesh and sentenced to 4 months RI and a fine of Rs. 100 each. The incident occurred during a religious gathering when the appellant took a musical instrument from the complainant and inflicted knife injuries on him and others who tried to intervene.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the intention or knowledge on the part of the appellant that his act could have caused death, and that the injuries were not grievous in nature. The court also found that the appellant was guilty of voluntarily causing hurt by means of a cutting instrument under Section 324 IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had the intention or knowledge that his act could have caused death. 2. Whether the injuries caused were grievous in nature. 3. Whether the appellant was guilty of voluntarily causing hurt by means of a cutting instrument under Section 324 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the intention or knowledge on the part of the appellant that his act could have caused death, as the injuries were not grievous in nature. 2. The court held that the injuries were not grievous in nature as they did not cause severe bodily pain or prevent the complainant from following his ordinary pursuits for a space of 20 days. 3. The court held that the appellant was guilty of voluntarily causing hurt by means of a cutting instrument under Section 324 IPC, as the ingredients of the offense were established by the prosecution.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction under Section 307 IPC and maintaining the conviction under Section 324 IPC. The sentence under Section 324 IPC was reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, who was ordered to be released forthwith.
( 1 ) APPELLANT Babloo alias Sujeet, after having been convicted in S. T. No. 195/91 under Section 307, I. P. C. , wherein he was awarded R. I. for 5 years together with a fine of Rs. 500. 00 and under Section 324, I. P. C. for causing injuries to two persons, namely Motilal and Ganesh and sentenced to 4-4 months' R. I. on the said counts together with a fine of Rs. 100-100. 00, approached this Court by means of present appeal for selling aside the conviction and sentence.
( 2 ) THE appellant is resident of village Madhia, district Sagar and appears to be a religious person as the occurrence in question took place when the appellant, complainant Shailendra, Motilal and Ganesh were participating in a Keertan. The alleged incident took place on 24/08/1990 in village Madhia during the night hours while the Keertan at the resident of Rama (P. W. 10) was going on. The report of the occurrence was lodged by Shailendra (P. W. 11) at about 2. 00 a. m. in the night the same day at P. S. Cantt. Sagar, which is Ex. P/9. In the alleged incident Shailendra, Motilal and Ganesh received injuries.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to prosecution, in the night of 24/08/1990 at the house of Rama (P. W. 10) in village Madhia Keertan was going on, wherein complainant Shailendra (P. W. 11) was present and he was playing Jhoola (musical instrument ). Motilal (P. W. 12), Lalloo Patel (P. W. 13) and Ganesh (P. W. 14) were also participating in the said Keertan, while Keertan was going on the accused-appellant is said to have taken said 'jhoola' from the hands of complainant Shailendra, which was objected to by him, where at the accused-appellant caught him and took him out side the house of Rama (P. W. 10) and inflicted knife injuries on his chest as well as leg. Motilal (P. W. 12) and Ganesh (P. W. 14) who went there to pacify the matter were also inflicted injuries by knife by the accused-appellant. However, the matter could be acified by Lalloo (P. W. 13) and Rama (P. W. 10 ). Thereafter the report of the alleged incident was lodged by Shailendra (P. W. 11) at P. S. Cantt. Sagar and a case was registered as Crime No. 325/90. After investigation of the crime, charge-sheet was submitted that the case was handed over to the Sessions Court.
( 4 ) BEFORE the Sessions Court the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. Ramkishan, the witness of seizure of clothes of Shailendra was examined as P. W. 1 Dr. V. K. Mishra Radiologist, who performed the X-ray of the injuries on the persons of Sahilendra was examined as P. W. 2. Dr. B. R. Agrawal, who medically examined Shailendra (P. W. 11), Motilal (P. W. 12) and Ganesh (P. W. 14), was examined as P. W. 3. Mevalal, the witness of fact was examined as P. W. 4 Bhagwandas, who is also the witness of fact, was examined as P. W. 5. Ramesh Kumar, Head Constable, was examined as P. W. 6. Dhanpatram, the Head Constable, who got the site plan prepared, was examined as P. W. 7. Dinesh Kumar, Constable, who produced the copy of the F. I. R. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, was examined as P. W. 8. Manmohan, a Lecturer, who was the witness of seizure of clothes of Shailendra, was examined as P. W. 9. Rama the person in whose house the 'keertan' was being performed was examined as P. W. 10. Shailendra, the complainant, was examined as P. W. 11. Motilal the person who received injury was examined as P. W. 12. Lalloo Patel, the witness of occurrence was examined as P. W. 13. Ganesh, the person who received injuries was examined as P. W. 14. Dr. Prafulla Kumar Dhagat, Surgical Specialist, who performed the operation on the person of Shailendra was examined as P. W. 15 and Sarvjeet Singh Chahal, the Investigating Officer, was examined a P. W. 16.
( 5 ) AS usual, the defence was that of denial.
( 6 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
( 7 ) THE appeal has come up for hearing after having been expedited and the hearing of the appeal was expedited on the statemen
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.