Raju @ Govind s/o Kishan Koli vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(MP) 959

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Prem Narayan Singh, J.
Raju @ Govind s/o Kishan Koli and others – Petitioner
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondents
Cri. Appeal No. 4177 of 2023
Decided On : 11-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sanjay Kumar Sharma
For the Respondent: Rajesh Joshi

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 324/34, 325/34, 326/34 - Conviction for grievous hurt, with injuries sustained by the complainant during an assault - Appellants convicted for 2 years, 3 years and 5 years R.I. - Trial Court committed error in conviction under 326; injuries classified as grievous yet caused by blunt weapon, hence appropriate to convict under section 325. (Paras 18 and 19)

(B) Sentencing - Purpose of sentencing should focus on deterrence and correction, taking into account the gravity of the offence and circumstances. Sentence reduced to the time already served with a fine increase to Rs.10,000 per appellant. (Paras 20 and 21)

Facts of the case:
The complainant was assaulted by multiple persons using various weapons after being threatened, leading to serious injuries requiring medical treatment. The trial resulted in convictions based on the testimony of witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The initial convictions under sections 324 and 326 were deemed incorrect; convictions adjusted to reflect charges under section 325/34 for grievous injury with a revised sentence focused on already served time and increased fines.

Issues: Whether the trial Court's conviction under section 326 was appropriate given the nature of the injuries and weapon used, and the correct application of sections regarding sentencing.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction under section 326 found inappropriate as injuries classified as grievous by blunt objects necessitate section 325 application; sentence adjusted to reflect justice and served time.

Result: Appeal partly allowed, sentencing revised.

Table of Content
1. details of the criminal appeal and prosecution case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. defense arguments regarding conviction and sentencing. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court's analysis of evidence and applicable law. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. reduction of sentence based on previous incarceration. (Para 21)
5. conclusion and order of appeal. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

Prem Narayan Singh, J.

This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15-3-2023 passed by 2nd Additional Session Judge, Ratlam, District Ratlam in S.T. No. 2400095/2014 whereby the appellants/accused persons have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 324/34, 325/34, 326/34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and sentenced for 2 years, 3 years and 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 2000/-, Rs. 3000/-, Rs. 5000/- and usual default stipulations.

2. Prosecution story in nut shell are that on 26-2-2014 complainant, a driver, filed a report that he was returning back after dropping his child in school and when he reached Godra bridge, then accused persons namely Raju Kholi armed with sword, Vikas Harijan armed with iron rod, Monti armed with sword and Bunty armed with baseball stick stopped the complainant and started hurling abuses on account of previous enmity. On being prevented by the complainant, they sprinkled chilli powder in his eyes and started assaulting him. Appellant Raju and Monti assaulted complainant on his left leg below his knee and on right hand wrist. Accused Bunty assaulted the complainant below his right leg knee with baseball stick and accused Vikas assaulted with iron rod on his feet due to which complainant sustained injury and started bleeding. Complainant cried for rescue. On hearing his appeal, Nandibai, Mukesh and Amarsingh along with other persons came on to rescue him. Accused persons fled away from the spot. Further allegation is that the accused persons threatened to kill the complainant. Complainant was taken to hospital for treatment.

3. On the basis of dehati nalisi of the injured/complainant offence under sections 341, 294, 323, 326, 506, 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE was registered at Crime No. 125/14 against the accused persons. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared and weapons used in the incident were seized and seizure memo was prepared. Further after recording the statement of the witnesses and arrest of the accused persons, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ratlam, in turn the matter was committed to the Sessions Court which was finally heard and adjudicated by Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam, District Ratlam.

4. ...

5. The appellants/accused persons were tried and charged under sections 326 in alternate 326/34, 325 in alternate 325/34, 324 in alternate 324/34, 323 in alternate 323/34, 294 and 506 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . Thereafter the plea of the appellants/accused persons has been recorded in which they abjured their guilt and took a plea that they are innocent.

6. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses namely Nandibai (PW-1), Amarsingh (PW-2), Injured/complainant-Praveen Solanki (PW-3), Dr. Shailendra Mathur (PW-4), Jitendra Raikwar (PW-5), Mukesh (P.W.6), Dr. R. K. Tiwari (P.W.7), A. B. Khaka (P.W.8), R. L. Meena (P.W9). No witness has been examined in support of the defence by the appellants.

7. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence and material available on record has convicted the appellants/accused persons under sections 324/34, 325/34, 326/34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860. Hence being aggrieved of the impugned order, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

8. The appellants have preferred the present appeal mainly on the ground that judgment and order of the trial Court is contrary to law and facts available on record. The learned trial Court committed error in not considering the material contradictions and omissions a