advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

application for permission to file additional document (Annexures P-12, P-13) has been moved before us, enclosing Panchayatnama dated 05.02.2014, prepared by the villagers. Since the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is non-compoundable offence, as such, we reject the compromise filed by the appellant. Though the victim also appeared in person before us to corroborate that now he is no more interested to prosecute the appellant, but considering the nature of injuries and the nature of offence, we are not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial court against the appellant, and affirmed by the High Court. However, taking note of above fact, we think it just to reduce the period of sentence of imprisonment to three years without interfering with the sentence of fine. This reduction in sentence shall not be treated precedent for sentencing in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 758 OF 2015
                    (@ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.  4044  of 2015)
                          (Crl. M.P. No. 4741/2015)

Mohar Singh                                      … Appellant

                                   Versus
State of Rajasthan                                 …Respondent






                               J U D G M E N T


Prafulla C. Pant, J.



      This appeal is directed against judgment and order  dated  25.02.2014,
passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in  S.B.
Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1998 whereby said Court has dismissed the  appeal
and affirmed the conviction and sentence  recorded  by  Additional  Sessions
Judge, Karauli, under Section 307 of Indian Penal  Code  (IPC)  in  Sessions
case No. 26 of 1986.

We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.03.1986, Rekh  Singh  (PW-1)  was
going to get his tubewell engine  repaired.  He  was  stopped  by  appellant
Mohar Singh and three others.  While other three caught hold of Rekh  Singh,
appellant gave lathi blows on his neck, back and  legs,  due  to  which  the
injured (Rekh Singh) fell down.  Witnesses Man Singh (PW-2), Gyan Singh (PW-
3), and Ram Roop (PW-4) witnessed the incident.  They took  the  injured  to
hospital where Dr. Nand Lal Sharma (PW-5)   recorded  injuries  suffered  by
Rekh Singh in Ex. P-7, and also advised X-ray.  After  X-ray  of  injury  on
head, suffered by the  injured,  fracture  was  detected  and  supplementary
report Ex.  P-5  was  prepared.   PW-7  Manvendra  Singh,  S.H.O.,  Karauli,
received information from aforesaid hospital, and set the  police  machinery
into action. Sub-inspector, Bharat Singh (PW-6) went  to  the  hospital  and
recorded “Parcha Bayan” - Ex. P-1.  On the basis of said  memorandum,  First
Information Report No. 70/86 was registered at the Police  Station.   S.H.O,
Manvendra Singh  (PW-7) investigated the Crime, and after interrogating  the
witnesses, and inspection of  site,  filed  charge-sheet  against  appellant
Mohar Singh and three others, namely, Ram Kishan and  his  sons  Meetha  Lal
and Bheem Singh, for their trial in  respect  of  offence  punishable  under
Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

The concerned Magistrate, on  receipt  of  the  charge-sheet,  after  giving
necessary copies, appears to  have  committed  the  case  to  the  Court  of
Sessions for trial.  The trial court,  after  hearing  the  parties,  framed
charge in respect of offence punishable under  Section  307/34  IPC  against
all the four accused, including the appellant, who pleaded  not  guilty  and
claimed to be tried.  On this, prosecution  got  examined  PW-1  Rekh  Singh
(injured), PW-2 Man Singh, PW-3 Gyan Singh, PW-4 Ram  Roop  (all  the  three
are witnesses), PW-5  Dr.  Nand  Lal  Sharma  (who  medically  examined  the
injured), PW-6 Bharat Singh, and PW-7 S.H.O. Manvendra Singh  (Investigating
Officer).


Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under  Section  313  of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in reply to which  they  pleaded  that
evidence against them was  false.   However,  no  evidence  in  defence  was
adduced.


The trial court, after hearing the parties,  found  that  prosecution  could
successfully prove charge of offence punishable under Section 307  IPC  only
against Mohar Singh, and involvement of  other  three  others,  namely,  Ram
Kishan (Father of  Mohar  Singh)  and  Meetha  Lal  and  Bheem  Singh  (both
brothers of  Mohar  Singh)  was  doubtful.   Accordingly,  the  trial  court
convicted Mohar Singh, and after  hearing  of  sentence,  sentenced  him  to
rigorous imprisonment for a period of five  years  and  fine  of  Rs.  500/-
under Section 307 IPC, and further directed that in default  of  payment  of
fine, he shall undergo additional sentence of imprisonment for a  period  of
six months.
Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated  29.04.1988  passed  in  Sessions
case No. 26 of 1986 by  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Karauli,  the  convict
filed S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1986.  However, the High Court,  after
hearing the parties, found no force in the appeal, and dismissed  the  same.
Hence this appeal, through Special Leave.

Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention the  eight
injuries suffered by Rekh Singh which were recorded by Dr. Nand  Lal  Sharma
(PW-5) in his report Ex.P-6, which are reproduced below:-

“(a)  Red blue mark10 x 8 cm on left temoral region of head and on  parietal
region of skull, in which there was lot of  swelling  and  left  eye  became
totally blue. This injury was long in nature.



(b)   Red oblique bluish mark 7 x 3 cm., which was on right  side  of  neck,
swelling was in it.



Oblique red blue mark 7 x 2 cm on upper part of left thigh.



Red blue mark 12 x 3 cm on left lower part of chest.



Cut wound 2 x 0.5 cm, which was skin deep, on the middle part of  left  leg,
where from blood was oozing out.



Red blue mark 2 x 1 cm on left shoulder.



Red abrasion mark 2 x 1 cm also on left elbow.



Red blue mark 2 x 1 cm on right hand.”




 The medical officer has further  proved  supplementary  report  Ex.P-5  and
also the X-ray plates Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4, and opined that there was  fracture
corresponding to injury No.1. In his opinion the  injuries  were  caused  by
hard blunt  object  like  lathi.  However,  in  the  cross-examination  said
witness has stated that the injury could have been caused by fall.

The statement of the PW-1 Rekh  Singh  injured,  is  not  only  natural  and
trustworthy, but also corroborated by medical  evidence  on  record.   Apart
from this, eye witnesses PW-2 Man Singh, PW-3 Gyan Singh and PW-4  Ram  Roop
have further corroborated the incident.  Injury on the head is  so  grievous
that the medical officer has opined, it could have caused death.   As  such,
we do not find any  illegality  committed  by  the  courts  below  regarding
conviction of Mohar Singh (appellant) in respect of  offence  under  Section
307 IPC.

Learned counsel for  the  appellant  submitted  before  us  that  after  the
incident, the injured has entered into compromise, and he does not  want  to
prosecute the appellant. In this connection, application for  permission  to
file additional document (Annexures P-12, P-13) has been  moved  before  us,
enclosing Panchayatnama dated 05.02.2014, prepared by the villagers.   Since
the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC  is  non-compoundable  offence,
as such, we reject the compromise filed by the appellant. Though the  victim
also appeared in person before us to corroborate that  now  he  is  no  more
interested to  prosecute  the  appellant,  but  considering  the  nature  of
injuries and the nature of offence, we are not inclined  to  interfere  with
the conviction recorded by  the  trial  court  against  the  appellant,  and
affirmed by the High Court.  However, taking note of above  fact,  we  think
it just to reduce the period of sentence  of  imprisonment  to  three  years
without interfering with the sentence of fine.  This reduction  in  sentence
shall not  be  treated  precedent  for  sentencing  in  respect  of  offence
punishable under Section 307 IPC.

Accordingly, conviction is not interfered with but the sentence  is  reduced
to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The  appeal  stands  disposed  of.
The appellant shall surrender before the court concerned to  serve  out  the
remaining unserved part of sentence, as modified by this Court.


                                                           ……………….....…………J.
                                                               [Dipak Misra]



                                                             .……………….……………J.
New Delhi;                        [Prafulla C. Pant]
May 11, 2015.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.