Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 12400
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 13th OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 14195 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. ABHISHEK RAJ AHIRWAR @ BHATA S/O
SITARAM AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O MAHAKALI CHOWK
SABJI MANDI PADAV THANA LARDGANJ DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ANKIT RAIKWAR S/O SEETARAM AHIRWAR,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
R/O SABJI MANDI LATWARI KA PADAV HANUMAN
MANDIR KE PASS POLICE THANA LARDGANJ
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI NARENDRA NIKHARE - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION LORDGANJ R/O DISTRICT
JABALPUR
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
SMT. SEEMA SAHU – PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE AND SHRI ABHISHEK
KUMAR PATEL – ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR
RESERVED ON : 04.12.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.12.2023
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on for
pronouncement this day, this court passed the following :
2
Narendra Nikhare,Advocate General
Injuries that are not grievous or dangerous to life do not constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC, and compromises between the accused and the victims can be considered in sentencing.
Headnote:
ATTEMPT TO MURDER - ARMS ACT - COMPROMISE - [SECTION 307/34 IPC, SECTION 25 (1) (B) (B) OF ARMS ACT] - Conviction under Section 307/34 IPC set aside and instead appellants convicted under Section 324 of IPC - Conviction under Section 25 (1) (B) (B) of Arms Act set aside - Appellants acquitted under Section 324 of IPC due to compromise.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted for offences under Section 307/34 of IPC and Section 25 (1) (B) (B) (two counts) of Arms Act for assaulting two persons with a knife with the intention to kill them. On appeal, the appellants argued that the injuries were not dangerous to life, the seized article was not sealed on the spot, and a compromise had been reached with the injured persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injuries were not grievous and did not endanger the lives of the victims. The court also found that the seized article was not sealed on the spot and that the prosecution failed to prove that it was properly kept in the police 'Malkhana'. The court accepted the compromise between the appellants and the injured persons.
Issues: Whether the injuries caused to the victims were grievous and endangered their lives, whether the seized article was properly sealed and kept in the police 'Malkhana', and whether the compromise between the appellants and the injured persons should be considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following legal principles:- Injuries that are not grievous or dangerous to life do not constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC.- Seized articles must be properly sealed and kept in the police 'Malkhana' to ensure their authenticity and prevent tampering.- Compromises between the accused and the victims can be considered in sentencing, especially in cases where the injuries are not grievous and the accused have no prior criminal record.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction under Section 307/34 IPC and instead convicted the appellants under Section 324 of IPC. The court also set aside the conviction under Section 25 (1) (B) (B) of Arms Act. The appellants were acquitted under Section 324 of IPC due to the compromise with the injured persons.
1.
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C by
the appellants being crestfallen by the judgment dated 02.11.2023 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, No. 8 (Electricity Act),
Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.43/2001, whereby the appellant (Abhishek Raj
Ahirwar) has been convicted for offences under Section 307/34 of IPC and
Section 25 (1) (B) (B) (two counts) of Arms Act, sentencing him to undergo
R.I. for five years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- (two times) and Rs. 4,000/- and
Rs. 1,000/- respectively with default stipulations and appellant No.2 (Ankit
Raikwar) has been convicted for offences under Section 307/34 of IPC
and Section 25 (1) (B) (B) of Arms Act, sentencing him to undergo R.I. for
one year with fine of Rs. 2,000/- (two times) and Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 1,000/-
respectively with default stipulation and observation that both the sentences
would run concurrently.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution story, in short, is that on date 07.09.2020
Anshul Kushwaha along with his friend Ansul Sahu at 04:00 pm were
going to Yadav Colony by motorcycle to get the photocopies. Ansul
Kushwaha was driving the motorcycle. When they reached Ranital near
Allahabad Bank, then appellants called Anshul Kushwaha by name and his
friend and they stopped the motorcycle and then appellant Abhishek Raj
3
Ahirwar stated why he is abusing. When Ashul Kushwaha denied that he has
not abused then Abhishek Raj Ahirwar assaulted with knife with intention to
kill him. He assaulted Anshul Kushwaha on right side of the neck with knife.
When P.W. 2 (Ansul Sahu) tried to save P.W. 1 (Anshul Kushwaha) then
Abhishek Raj Ahirwar assaulted P.W. 2 (Anshul Sahu) with intention to kill
with knife on his head, face and back of Anshul Sahu. On screaming, other
persons present on spot came there. Then accused persons fled away from
the spot and injured person were taken to Victoria Hospital at Jabalpur.
Thereafter, police by following due process arrested the accused persons and
registered the case against appellants. After necessary investigation, charge
sheet has been filed by police against the appellants under Section 307/34 of
IPC and Section 25 of the Arms act.
3. In turn, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter,
appellants were charged for the offence under Section 307/34 and Section 25
of the Arms Act.
4. The appellants abjured their guilt and submitted that they have been
falsely implicated in the present crime and prayed for trial.
5.
In support of prosecution case, the prosecution examined seven
witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 injured (Anshul Kushwaha), P.W. 2 injured
(Ansul Sahu), P.W. 3 (Ayush Khatik), P.W. 4 (Dr. Somya Saini), P.W. 5 (Anil
4
Mishra - Sub Inspector), P.W. 6 (Dr. Arsha Rai), and (P.W. 7 Ram Prasad
Maravi). No witnesses has been examined by the appellants in their defence.
6. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence and argument
advanced by the parties pronounced the judgment on 02.11.2023 by
concluding the case and convicted the appellants for commission of the said
offence and sentenced them as hereinabove.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that trial Court has not
considered the material evidence available on record and committed grave
error of law in not considering the material contradiction and omission in the
statement of prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that doctor P.W. 4
(Somya Saini) and P.W. 6 (Dr. Arsha Rai) in their statements before the trial
court clearly stated that injuries so received by the injured are not dangerous
to life. He further submitted that appellants are young and having no
criminal antecedents and facing trial. He further submitted that trial Court
ignored that the both injured persons have entered into compromise with
appellants on 29.08.2023. He further submitted that offence against the
appellants is not covered under Section 307 of IPC and hence, prayed for
acquittal.
8.
