Lakhan Lal Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 06 of 2007

1. Lakhan Lal Patel, son of Pardesi Patel, aged about 37 years, R/o Village - Semarchua, Police Station Jarhagaon, District, Bilaspur, CG ---- Applicant/Complainant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through PS Jarhagaon, District Bilaspur, CG

2. Johanram S/o Jugram Patel, aged about 31 years

3. Bhikhamram S/o Jugram Patel, aged about 32 years

4. Mohanram S/o Jugram Patel, aged about 28 years All R/o village Semerchuwa, Police station - Jarhagaon, District Bilaspur, CG ---- Respondents For Applicant :

Shri Akhil Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State:

Shri Rahul Tamaskar, PL For other respondents:

Shri Shailendra Dubey, Advocate S DB: HON. PRITINKER DIWAKER & HON. RCS SAMANT, JJ Order on Board by Justice P. Diwaker /01/2017 Present revision has been filed by the applicant/complainant against the judgment dated 26.10.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in Sessions Trial No. 443/2004 convicting respondents/accused Johanram, Bhikhamram and Mohan under Section 323 IPC and sentencing each of them to pay Rs. 500/- for causing simple injuries to Lakhan and Pardeshi each. However, by the same judgment all the accused persons including Johanram, Bhikhamram and Mohan have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 294, 506-B, 452, 148 and 307/149 IPC. Apart from accused Johanram, Bhikhamram and Mohan, other accused persons have also been acquitted of the charge under Section 323/149 IPC.

2.

Facts of the case in brief are that on 21.2.2004 at 10.30 PM FIR Ex. P-07 was lodged by Lakhan Lal (PW-9) alleging that he was in cultivating possession of the land owned by Ramkunwar and as the accused persons wanted to take forcible possession of the said land, on that day at 9 AM they entered his house and assaulted him, his mother Satwantin Bai and father Pardeshi (PW-6). On the basis of this report offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 506-B, 452, 307 and 323 IPC were registered against 12 accused persons. Lakhan Lal (PW-9) was medically examined by Dr. Sanjay Agrawal (PW-7) vide report Ex. P-14 whereas Pardeshi Marar (PW-6) and Satwantin Bai (not examined) were medically examined by Dr. (Smt.) Vibha Sindur (PW-10) vide reports Ex. P-18 and Ex. P-19. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against them u/s 147, 148, 149, 294, 506-B, 452, 307 and 323 IPC followed by framing of charge accordingly.

3.

So as to hold the accused/respondents guilty, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.

4.

After hearing the parties, except accused Johanram, Bhikhamram and Mohan the trial Court has acquitted all other accsued persons of the charges levelled against them. It however convicted these three accused under Section 323 IPC but acquitting them also of the other charges levelled against them. 5.

Counsel for the applicant/complainant submits that the Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the

prosecution in its proper perspective while acquitting other respondents/accused of the charges levelled against them. He submits that when all the accused persons have been named in the FIR, they all should have been convicted by the Court below. Likewise, it is submitted that the Court below has committed an error in convicting accused Johanram, Bhikhamram and Mohan just under Section 323 and not u/s 307 IPC though apparently an attempt was made by them to commit the murder of Lakhan Lal and Pardeshi. According to the counsel for the applicant, when all the accused persons barged into the premises of the applicant/complainant, offence under Section 450 IPC is clearly made out against them all. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant/complainant that the sentence imposed on accused Johanram, Bhikhamram and Mohan is quite inadequate and therefore by awarding jail sentence to them, he may be suitably compensated.

6.

Supporting the judgment impugned it has been argued on behalf of the respondents/accused Johanram, Bhikhamram and Mohan that the judgment impugned acquitting them of the charges levelled against them except under Section 323 IPC is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. He submits that as the other accused persons being the members of same family were falsely implicated by the complainant party, their acquittal is fully justified. According to the counsel for respondents/accused, against Johanram, Bhikhamram and Mohan only the offence under Section 323 IPC is made out and being so the sentence of fine imposed on them is adequate and no interference with the same is called for.

7.

State counsel has assisted the Court.

8.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9.

Injured eyewitnesses namely Lakhan Lal (PW-9) and Pardeshi (PW-6) have duly supported the case of the prosecution stating that respondents/accused Johanram, Bhikhamram and Mohan inflicted injuries to them as also to Satwantin Bai (not examined) by club. Other eyewitnesses namely Jagannath Prasad Dadsena (PW-2) and Peetram (PW-4) have also supported the case of the prosecution. That apart, Dr. Sanjay Agrawal (PW-7) who medically examined Lakhan Lal (PW-9) and Dr. (Smt.) Vibha Sindur (PW-10) who medically examined Pardeshi Marar (PW-6) have also supported the case of the prosecution. Thus the complicity of the respondents/accused Johanram, Bhikhamram and Mohan in inflicting injuries to Lakhan Lal, Pardeshi and Satwantin Bai is clearly made out.

10.

Now the question to be decided by this Court is whether the act of the accused persons falls under Section 323 or any other section of the Indian Penal Code. Medical report of Lakhan Lal (PW9) which has been proved by Dr. Sanjay Agrawal (PW-7) goes to show that he suffered two lacerated wounds and two contusions. According to the doctor examining this witness the nature of injuries could be determined only after seeing the x-ray report. However, no x-ray report has been filed and exhibited by the prosecution. Likewise, the medical report of Pardeshi (PW-6) which has been proved by Dr. (Smt.) Vibha Sindur (PW-10) goes to show that he suffered four abrasions and one lacerated wound. Nature of injury, according to the doctor examining him, could be determined only after seeing the x-ray report but here also no such report has been filed and proved by the prosecution.

11.

Thus taking into consideration the evidence of the witnesses including that of the injured and the doctors (PW-7 and PW-10), the conclusion drawn by the Court below convicting respondents/accused Johanram, Bhikhamram and Mohan under Section 323 IPC is just and proper and there is no infirmity in the same warranting interference therewith in this revision. That apart, it is a settled legal position that if the material available on record gives rise to two views, the one favouring the accused has to be given preference. Accordingly, this Court does not see any reason to dislodge the judgment of the Court below acquitting respondents/accused Johanram, Bhikhamram and Mohan of the charges u/s 307, 294, 506-B, 452 and 149 levelled against them but convicting them u/s 323 IPC. It is accordingly maintained. 12.

Even the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court on accused Johanram, Bhikhamram and Mohan appears to be justified and is not required to be enhanced. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, each of these accused persons is directed to pay Rs. 3000/- (totaling to Rs. 9000/-) as compensation in terms of the provision of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be disbursed to the injured witnesses in equal proportion. This would be in addition to the fine amount imposed by the Court below and shall be deposited within a period of six months from today.

13.

With the aforesaid modification in the sentence part of the judgment impugned, the revision is disposed of. SdSd/- (Pritinker Diwaker) (R.C.S. Samant) Judge Judge Jyotishi