2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 10071
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4177 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1.
RAJU @ GOVIND S/O KISHAN KOLI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
R/O. HOUSE NO.107, LAXMANPURA,
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
BUTY @ HUKUMCHAND
S/O PRABHUDAYAL,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOR
R/O. GALI NO. 2 PNT COLONY RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
MONTY @ RAVINDRA S/O MITHLESH KALAL,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UEMPLOYED
R/O. HOUSE NO. 306, JAWAHAR NAGAR DIST.:
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THRU.P.S.INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DIST.: RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAJESH JOSHI - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
Reserved on :29.08.2023
Delivered on :11.09.2023
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
Sanjay Kumar Sharma,Advocate General
1
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 11-09-
2023 17:11:39
Signature Not Verified
This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the
appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.03.2023 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 IPC, 1860 and sentenced
for 02 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 26.02.2014 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 IPC was registered at Crime No.125/14
against the accused persons. During the course of investigation, spot map was
2
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 11-09-
2023 17:11:39
Signature Not Verified
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.
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 IPC. 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 . T he 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 IPC, 1860. Hence being aggrieved of the
impugned order, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
08. 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 appeared in the statements of
prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently
3
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 11-09-
2023 17:11:39
Signature Not Verified
contended that as per the statement of Dr. Shailendra Mathur (P.W.4) only
injury No.7 (injured sustained fracture on his right and left legs) can be treated
as grievous injury as this injury was caused by hard