Partly allowed

Devi Singh and Ors. v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Chhattisgarh HC18 May 2018CRA/3357/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction for attempted murder arising from an assault during a festival dispute, the High Court held that while grievous injury was caused, there was no intent to kill. The appeal was partly allowed, conviction reduced by one year under Section 307 IPC to Section 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and sentence reduced to time already served with an additional fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 307 IPC altered to Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellants sentenced to period already undergone plus fine of Rs. 50,000 each.

Devi Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Madhya… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

AFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Appeal No.3357 of 1999

¶4

Judgment Reserved on : 21.2.2018

¶5

Judgment Delivered on : 18.5.2018

¶6

1. Devi Singh, son of Sarabu Panka, aged about 25 years,

¶7

2. Goverdhan, son of Sarabu Panka, aged about 22 years,

¶8

3. Budhram alias Budhhu, son of Sarabu Panka, aged about 27 years,

¶9

All cultivators and residents of Village Jaitgiri, Police Chowki Bakaband, Police Station Nagarnar, District Bastar, M.P. (now Chhattisgarh)

¶10

---- Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh)

¶13

--- Respondent

¶14

-------------------------------------	-----------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants	: Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶16

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

¶17

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.11.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No.328 of 1998 by the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur convicting and sentencing each of the Appellants as under:

¶18

Appellants	Conviction	Se	ntence
Appellant No.2, Goverdhan	Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code	Rigorous for 4 year Rs.1000/- stipulation	Imprisonment s and fine of with default
Appellant No.1, Devi Singh and	Under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code	Rigorous for 3 year	Imprisonment s and fine of
Appellant No.3,		Rs.500/-	with default
Budhram		stipulation

¶19

¶20

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 29.8.1998 at about 10:00 p.m., Complainant/injured Pravin Kumar Tiwari (PW4) was dancing in a tent of Lord Ganesh Festival being celebrated in Village Jaitgiri. At that time, for a dispute taken due to an old enmity relating to money, Appellant Goverdhan armed with tangiya and Appellants Budhram and Devi Singh armed with lathi came there. They assaulted Complainant Pravin Kumar Tiwari (PW4). Pravin Kumar Tiwari sustained injury on head and got unconscious. Thereafter, the Appellants fled from there. The incident was witnessed by Pradeep Tiwari (PW5), brother of Complainant Pravin Kumar Tiwari and two others Bhagwandas and Narsingh. Pradeep Tiwari (PW5) lodged First Information Report (Ex.P7) at Police Station Nagarnar. Offence under Section 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Injured Pravin Kumar Tiwari (PW4) was first examined by Dr. Sarita Mahobia (PW1) on 29.8.1998. Her report is Ex.P1 in which she found one injury on the head measuring 4 inches in length and 1½ inches in depth which was inflicted by a hard and sharp edged object. Nature of the injury was grievous. The Complainant was later on examined by Dr. Kishore Jha (PW2). His report is Ex.P6. During investigation, on the basis of memorandum statement of Appellant Devi Singh, one danda was seized from the possession of Devi Singh vide Ex.P11. The said danda was examined by Dr. Sarita Mahobia (PW1), who opined that the injury sustained by Complainant Pravin Kumar Tiwari could be caused by the said danda. Vide Ex.P9, plain and blood stained soil were seized from the place of occurrence. Statements of witnesses under Sections 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellants for

¶21

¶22

offence punishable under Sections 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed against them under Sections 307, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

3. To rope in the Appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements of the Appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. 2 witnesses have been examined in their defence.

¶24

4. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellants as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶25

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants argued that the Appellants have falsely been implicated in the case due to a previous enmity. The victim was caused only single injury. Dr. Kishore Jha (PW2) has opined that though injury was grievous in nature yet the same was not dangerous to life. In these circumstances, offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not established. For the act alleged to have been committed by the Appellants, they can be held guilty for offence punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that during trial, Appellant No.1 remained in custody for about 4 months and 5 days, Appellant No.2 for about 7 months and Appellant No.3 for about 3½ months. They are facing the lis since 1998. Therefore, they may be sentenced with the period already undergone by them.

¶26

6. On the contrary, Learned Counsel appearing for the State

¶27

¶28

supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. He submits that the injury was caused by tangiya and lathi on the vital parts of the body of the victim. Therefore, the offence committed by the Appellants falls under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record minutely.

¶30

8. Complainant Pravin Kumar Tiwari (PW4) has deposed that at the relevant point of time, he was dancing in a tent of Ganesh festival. At that time, the Appellants came there with lathi and tangiya. Appellant Devi Singh assaulted him with lathi which resulted into injury on his head. Appellant Budhram assaulted him with lathi which resulted into injury on his shoulder and Appellant Goverdhan assaulted him with tangiya on his head. He fell down and got unconscious. He has further stated that the incident was witnessed by his brother Pradeep Tiwari (PW5) and his friends. In paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief, he has stated that Appellant Devi Singh and his elder brother had taken a loan from him and were not repaying the same and on this issue, first a dispute took place with Appellant Goverdhan and a scuffle also took place with him. Thereafter, he again got busy in dancing. At that time, all the Appellants came there and assaulted him. In his cross-examination also, he admitted that the dispute was already going on between them for the money to be recovered by him from the Appellants.

¶31

9. Pradeep Tiwari (PW5), brother of Complainant Pravin Kumar Tiwari has supported the statement of Pravin Kumar Tiwari (PW4) and stated that at the relevant point of time, he was also dancing in the

¶32

¶33

same tent of Ganesh festival. At that time, the Appellants came there and assaulted his brother Pravin Kumar Tiwari with lathi and tangiya and thereafter they fled from there. He has further stated that he lodged FIR (Ex.P8). This witness has also admitted the fact that there was a dispute going on between his brother Pravin Kumar Tiwari and the Appellants and, therefore, the incident took place.

¶34

10. Satyendra Singh (PW7) and Hitendra Tiwari (PW8) have corroborated the above statements of Pravin Kumar Tiwari (PW4) and Pradeep Tiwari (PW5) and they have stated that they were also present at the spot. At that time, the Appellants came there with lathi and tangiya and assaulted Complainant Pravin Kumar Tiwari (PW4) with the said weapons as a result of which Pravin Kumar Tiwari fell down.

¶35

11. Pravin Kumar Tiwari (PW4) was first medically examined by Dr. Sarita Mahobia (PW1). She has stated that Pravin Kumar Tiwari was in semi-conscious condition. An injury measuring 4 inches in length x 1½ inches in depth was present on his head which was caused by a hard and sharp object. The injury was grievous in nature. In cross-examination, she has stated that she could not state whether the injury was grievous or not. Complainant/injured Pravin Kumar Tiwari was further examined and treated by Dr. Kishore Jha (PW2). He has stated that he had done operation of the head of Pravin Kumar Tiwari. During the operation, he had found that bone of the head had been fractured and the same had stuck in the brain and blood clot was present there. He has also opined that the injury was grievous in nature, but was not dangerous to life. His report is Ex.P6.

¶36

¶37

12. Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector S.K. Pandey (PW10) is the witness who recorded First Information Report (Ex.P8) on the information received from Pradeep Tiwari (PW5). He has stated that on 31.8.1998, he recorded memorandum statement (Ex.P10) of Appellant Devi Singh and on the basis of said statement, he recovered a lathi from the possession of Appellant Devi Singh vide Ex.P11. The seized lathi was examined by Dr. Sarita Mohobia (PW1). She opined that the injury suffered by Complainant Pravin Kumar Tiwari (PW4) could by caused by the said lathi. Her report is Ex.P5.

¶38

13. From a minute examination of the above statements of the witnesses, it is clear that at the relevant point of time when Complainant Pravin Kumar Tiwari (PW4) was dancing in the tent of Ganesh festival, the Appellants assaulted him with lathi and tangiya. His statement is duly corroborated by his brother Pradeep Tiwari (PW5) and other independent witnesses Satyendra Singh (PW7) and Hitendra Tiwari (PW8). They have remained firm during their cross-examination. From the statements of Dr. Sarita Mahobia (PW1) and Dr. Kishore Jha (PW2), it is clear that Complainant Pravin Kumar Tiwari (PW4) had sustained one injury on his head which was grievous in nature. From the statements of Pravin Kumar Tiwari (PW4) and his brother Pradeep Tiwari (PW5), it is also clear that Pravin Kumar Tiwari had given some money to the Appellants as loan which was not repaid by them and, therefore, a dispute was going on between them. From the statements of Pravin Kumar Tiwari (PW4) and Pradeep Tiwari (PW5), it is also clear that before this incident, same day, at the place of incident itself, a dispute had taken place between

¶39

¶40

Complainant Pravin Kumar Tiwari (PW4) and Appellant No.2, Goverdhan on the same issue. Thereafter, Appellant Goverdhan had returned. Later on, the present incident took place. From the statements of the witnesses, it is also clear that the incident took place where the dance programme was going on in the tent of Ganesh festival.

¶41

14. From the above discussion, I find that there was an old dispute going on between the Complainant and the Appellants, but the assault was made in a crowd. If intention of making the assault had been to commit murder of the Complainant, the Appellants would not have assaulted him in the crowd, instead they would have assaulted him in a lonely place. Secondly, only one injury was caused on the head of the Complainant which was found to be grievous in nature. But, as per the statement of Dr. Kishore Jha (PW2), the injury was not dangerous to life. Had intention of making the assault been to commit murder of the Complainant, the Appellants would have caused him more than one injury. In these circumstances, it is not established that the injury suffered by the Complainant was caused with an intent to commit his murder. But, the injury was caused on the head, therefore, it can be considered that the Appellants were aware that this injury could cause death of the Complainant. Hence, in my considered opinion, the offence of the Appellants falls under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the conviction is altered from Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶42

15. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellants that during trial, Appellant No.1 remained in custody for about 4 months and 5

¶43

¶44

days, Appellant No.2 for about 7 months and Appellant No.3 for about 3½ months. They are facing the lis since 1998. Therefore, they may be sentenced with the period already undergone by them.

¶45

16. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice if, for the conviction under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the Appellants are sentenced with the period already undergone by them. Ordered accordingly. Each of the Appellants shall also pay fine of Rs.50,000/-. This amount of fine shall be paid by each of the Appellants within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In default of payment, each of the Appellants shall be liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. The amount of fine already paid, if any, shall be adjusted in the amount of fine imposed today. After deposit of the total amount of fine of Rs.1,50,000/-, the same shall be paid to victim Pravin Kumar Tiwari (PW4) as compensation within one month from the date of deposit of the total amount of fine.

¶46

17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.

¶47

18. Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

¶48

Sd/( Arvind Singh Chandel ) JUDGE

¶49

Gopal

Devi Singh and Ors. v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Singh and Ors. v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Geeta Bala Vs Pradeep Kumar Avrol

Govind Thakur and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanglane Vs the State of M.P.

Hulas Singh Vs State

Smt. Shrilekha Saraf Vs Manoj Saraf

Yashvant Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh