JUDGEMENT

1]

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants Bhagwansingh and Padamsingh under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgement dated 17/12/2008 passed in Sessions Case No.16/2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur (M.P.) whereby finding the appellants guilty, the learned Judge of the Trial Court has convicted the appellants as under:-

AccusedConvictionSentence Bhagwansingh Section ActImprisonmentFineImprisonment in lieu of fine 304 Part IIIPC10 years RI1,000/- 3 month SI Padamsingh304 Part II, 323 IPC10 years RI1,000/-

each 3 month SI 2]Admittedly, both the appellants have already completed their sentences.

3]In brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 07/10/2006, complainant Jitendrasingh was going along with his mother Kailashbai/deceased (PW/6) and father Harisingh (PW/7) to cut Soybean crop, at that time, at around 5:00 O’clock in the evening, the appellant No.1 Bhagwansingh and appellant No.2 Padamsingh came on the spot and started abusing them and at that time, both the accused persons snatched the Daratas(sickles) which were being carried by the complainant Jitendrasingh and his mother Kailashbai for cropping purposes, and started assaulting them, as a result of which, Kailashbai fell down on the spot and when the complainant Jitendrasingh and his father Harisingh ran to save her, they were also assaulted by the accused persons. Kailashbai was taken to the primary health centre Awantipur Badodiya, and then taken to the District Hospital Shajapur, where she died during the treatment. The dispute between the parties was in respect of cultivation of agricultural field, and Jitendrasingh had also lodged a report earlier in this regard. The FIR was lodged and the investigation ensued and subsequently in the trial Court, learned Judge of the trial Court after recording the evidence, found the appellants guilty and convicted them as aforesaid, hence, this appeal.

4]Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the incident took place on a spur of the moment, in such circumstances, the sentence of 10 years is on higher side and under the facts and circumstances of the case, it should have been commensurate to the injuries inflicted.

5]On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out.

6]Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7]Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, it is found that so far as the deceased Kailashbai is concerned, she suffered as many as 5 incised injuries as follows:-

**¼1½dVk gqvk ?kko cka;s dqYgs ij i`"B Hkkx ij] vkdkj 12 ckbZ

1@2 lsa-eh- ck; 1@2 ls-eh- FkkA ¼3½dVk gqvk ?kko nk;ha tka?k ij chp okys fgLls ij vkxs dh rjQ vkdkj 10 ck; 2 ls-eh-


¼4½dVk gqvk ?kko nkfguh tka?k ij 1@3 Hkkx ij yksoj] lkeus dh vksj vkdkj lk

9] In view of the same, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality or jurisdictional error has been committed by the trial Court in convicting the appellants as aforesaid, and their sentences need no interference.

10]Accordingly, criminal appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Sd/-


(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE krjoshi
¼2½dVk gqvk ?kko cka;s ?kqVus ds tksM+ ij ckgj dh vksj vkdkj 2 ck;
In their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., both the appellants have stated that on account of the land dispute, they have been falsely implicated by the complainant, however, considering the fact that the guilt of the appellants is already established by the prosecution witnesses, and Daratas have also been seized from them, this Court sees no reason forthe material prosecution witnesses who are the son and the husband of the deceased to falsely implicate the appellants and to save some other person who killed the mother of the complainant and wife of PW/7 respectively.

¼2½dVk gqvk ?kko c