Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Prakash Chandra Gupta, J.
Gyanisingh Gurjar – Petitioner
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 7450 of 2023
Decided On : 05-03-2024
Criminal - IPC - 326 - The court affirmed the conviction under IPC Section 326, interpreting grievous injury caused by a deadly weapon, supported by eyewitness and medical evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for assaulting the complainant's son with a deadly weapon, resulting in grievous injuries. The incident occurred during a dispute over agricultural land, leading to an FIR and subsequent medical examination of the injured.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of the injured and eyewitnesses credible, supported by medical evidence, establishing that the appellant caused grievous injuries with a lathi. The acquittal of the co-accused did not undermine the appellant's conviction.
Issues: Whether the appellant inflicted grievous injury to the injured with a deadly weapon during the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the testimony of injured witnesses is reliable and should not be dismissed solely based on their relationship to the victim, as their presence at the scene is guaranteed.
Result: The appeal is dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
Prakash Chandra Gupta, J.
The appellant/accused has filed this appeal under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27-2-2023 passed by 4th ASJ Shujalpur, Distt.-Shajapur in S.T. No. 148/2020, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default stipulation.
2. Prosecution story, in brief is that on 24-9-2019, at 03:00 PM, complainant Kamla Bai (PW-2) along with her son Sonu (PW-6) was going to her agricultural land. When they reached at the agricultural land of Laad Singh Keer, the present appellant Gyan Singh Gurjar carrying Lathi bearing iron ring and co-accused Laad Singh carrying Pharsi came there and started abusing them due to old animosity. The accused persons assaulted Sonu (PW-6) by their respective weapon on his head and other parts of body with intent to kill him. The injured sustained grievous injury. Hearing cries of Kamla Bai (PW-2) and Sonu (PW-6) from the neighboring farmland, Kanta Bai (PW-3) and Sharda @ Shanta Bai (PW-1) had come to intervene in the matter and tried to rescue the injured. Meanwhile, Indar came there and after seeing him, the accused persons had fled away from the spot. Injured Sonu (PW-6) was taken to hospital and the matter was reported by Kamla Bai (PW-2). An FIR (Ex.P-2) was lodged on the same day at O/P Polaykala. On the basis of FIR (Ex.P-2), on the same day, an FIR (Ex.P-13), crime No. 203/2019 was registered at P/S Avantipur, Badodia, Distt. - Shajapur against the appellant and co-accused Laad Singh.
3. During investigation, medical examination of the injured was conducted at CHC Polaykala, by Dr. Prashant Madiya (PW-8). He was admitted in Vinayak Fracture Hospital, Sarangpur for 3 days, where Dr. Sunil Sharma (PW-9) had done his treatment. Thereafter, he was also admitted, Aurobindo Hospital, Indore from 3-10-2019 – 25-10-2019, where Dr. Rajiv Shukla (PW-15) had treated him. Medical documents were collected. Spot map was prepared. After completion of other formalities, charge-sheet for the offence punishable under section 307, 341, 294 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code was filed against co-accused Laad Singh. The appellant was absconded. He was arrested on 11-2-2021. A Lathi used in the offence was recovered from him. Supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him. The matter was committed by concerned JMFC to Sessions Judge, Shajapur. Thereafter, the matter was made over to the learned trial Court.
4. Learned trial Court framed charges under section 307, 324 and 294 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant and co-accused person. The appellant and co-accused person abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. In turn, the prosecution examined Sharda Bai (PW-1), Kamla Bai (PW-2), Kanta Bai (PW-3), Jeetmal (PW-4), Halka Patwari Anil Kumar Verma (PW-5), Sonu (PW-6), Bhagwan Singh (PW-7), Dr. Prashant Madiya (PW-8), Dr. Sunil Sharma (PW-9), HC Ajay Bhide (PW-10), ASI Nirmal Tigga (PW-11) SI Ram Gopal Verma (PW-12), SHO K. K. Chaubey (PW-13), SI Surendra Singh Mehta (PW-14) and Dr. Rajiv Shukla (PW-15) to prove its case. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. They had taken defence that accused persons are innocent and they have been falsely implicated due to animosity. Though, the accused persons have not examined any witness in their defence.
5. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and considering the evidence available on record had acquitted accused Laad Singh and convicted the appellant under section 326 of Indian Penal Code by acquitting him from charges under section 294 and 324 of Indian Penal Code.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that the appellant has not committed the offence and has falsely been implicated in the c
The testimony of injured witnesses is accorded special status and should be considered reliable unless substantial contradictions arise.
Criminal Law - Common Intention - Liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act....
The conviction for attempt to murder was altered to causing hurt due to insufficient evidence proving grievous injuries or intent to kill.
The court clarified that for a conviction under section 307 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not established in this case.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; if reasonable doubt exists, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt; the court found the injured witnesses' evidence credible.
In criminal cases, lack of medical evidence and reasonable doubt necessitate acquittal on serious charges, while lesser charges may still stand.
The court clarified that a conviction for attempted murder requires clear evidence of intent, which was lacking, thus warranting a lesser charge.
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
