Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 1180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
N. K. GUPTA, J.
ASHOK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 884 of 1998
Decided On : 04-08-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sankalp Kochar
For the Respondent: Ajay Tamrakar
The judgment establishes the importance of corroborative evidence, the consideration of compromise in sentencing, and the application of specific legal provisions in determining guilt and imposing appropriate sentences.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Assault - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - 148, 506-B, 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) - The judgment discusses the applicability of various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in a case involving assault and caste-related abuse. The court analyzes the evidence, medical reports, and witness testimonies to determine the guilt of the appellants and concludes by partially allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellants from certain charges while reducing the sentence for one of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an incident where the appellants assaulted the complainant, causing various injuries. The appellants were convicted under sections 148, 506-B of Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The complainant's testimony, medical evidence, and witness statements were crucial in establishing the events of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in witness testimonies and medical evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellants from certain charges. The court also considered the compromise between the parties and reduced the sentence for one of the appellants based on the period of custody and imposed a heavy fine.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the applicability of various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the consideration of the compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the discrepancies in witness testimonies, the lack of evidence for caste-related abuse, and the compromise between the parties. The court also considered the period of custody and imposed a heavy fine on one of the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, leading to the acquittal of the appellants from certain charges and the reduction of the sentence for one of the appellants. The court also directed the deposit of a fine and granted compensation to the complainant.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 19-3-1998 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Damoh in Special Case No. 452/1996 whereby each of the appellant has been convicted of offence under sections 148, 506-B of Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as "Special Act") and sentenced to one year's RI, six months' RI, six months' RI and three years' RI respectively. The appellant No. 1 has also been convicted of offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years' RI with fine of Rs. 1000/-, whereas the remaining appellants have been convicted of offence under sections 326/149 of Indian Penal Code and the sentence similar to the appellant No. 1 was passed against them.
2. The prosecution's story, in short, is that on 7-11-1996 the complainant Nanhe Bhai (PW-2) was going to the house of one Lakhan Singh to get some grains at Village Jhagri (Police Station Pathariya District Damoh). In front of the house of Gulab Singh, appellant No. 1 Ashok Lodhi detained him and abused him with obscene words and words related to his caste and gave blow of katarna on his head. Thereafter he gave a second blow on his left wrist. In the meantime, the other appellants Chandan Singh, Deo Singh, Roop Singh and Devi Singh arrived with sticks. They also abused the complainant with obscene words and the words related to the caste of the complainant and assaulted him with sticks causing various grave injuries. Witnesses Gulab Singh (PW-5), Mulu (PW-1) and Badi Bahu (PW-3)-wife of the complainant had saved the complainant. Complainant Nanhe Bhai went to the Police Station Pathariya with the help of others and lodged an FIR Ex.P-2. He was sent for his medico legal examination to the Primary Health Centre, Pathariya. Dr. E. Minj (PW-10) examined the complainant Nanhe Bhai and gave his report Ex.P-15A. He found two incised wounds to the complainant, out of them one was on his head and second was on his left wrist. Three blunt wounds were found upon the complainant on his right wrist, left thigh and right knee. Complainant Nanhe Bhai was referred for his X-ray examination. Dr. O. P. Dubey (PW-6) examined the victim Nanhe Bhai radio-logically and gave his report Ex.P-13. He found a fracture of ulna bone in his left hand as well as right hand. There was a fracture in femur bone. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Damoh.
3. The appellants-accused abjured their guilt. They did not take a specific plea, however they have stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter and no defence evidence was adduced.
4. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Special Judge, Damoh convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.
5. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 5 Devi Singh had expired, and therefore his appeal was dismissed being abated. Also IA No. 12854/2015 was filed under section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant Nanhe Bhai appeared before the Court and as per the direction of this Court, he appeared before the Registrar (J-1), and as per the report of Registrar (J-1), the dispute between the parties was resolved and the application was moved by complainant Nanhe Bhai with free consent and he voluntarily agreed to do compromise. Therefore, the said application is also to be decided by the present judgment.
6. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, the role of each of the appellant should be examined first and thereafter conclusion may be drawn about the offences done by them. Mulu (PW-1), Nanhe Bhai (PW-2), Badi Bahu (PW-3) and Gulab Singh (PW-5) were examined as eye-witnesses. Mulu (PW-1) and Gulab Singh (PW-5) have turned hostile. They have stated that complainant Nanhe Bhai assaulted the appellant No. 1 Ashok, and therefore Ashok ran away from the spot. He
