JUDGMENT
Rakesh Saksena, J.
1. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 2-11-1999 passed by the learned First Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 1998 convicting him under Sections 452, 506(B), 324 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 200/-, rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 200/- respectively. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. In nutshell the prosecution story is that complainant Jijabai lived in village Mungus Gadgaya with her husband Ramkrishna and husband’s second wife Shashikala. It is alleged that in the night of 4-4-1998 when she was inside her house and was seeing television programme on the first floor, accused Govinda armed with a sword and accused Babarao with Bichhua came to her house and knocked the door. When she opened the door, they came in and threatened that they will kill her and they assaulted her by their respective weapons. When her husband Ramkrishna and Shashikala came to save her, accused persons also assaulted them as a result of which Jijabai, Ramkrishna and Shashikala suffered injuries on hands, chest and thigh.
3. According to Jijabai (P.W. 4), accused persons wanted to grab her property after killing her. In the past also they had threatened her. In the next morning injured persons went to police station where jijabai lodged the report (Ex. P-12). The police registered the case under Sections 452 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. During investigation the police went at the spot, prepared the spot map, seized blood stained earth and clothes of the injured persons. It also recorded the statements of witnesses. On 6-4-1998 the police arrested accused Govinda and on his information seized a sword from a Nala situate near the house of complainant. Accused Babarao was also arrested and on his information a Bichhua (Chhuri) was seized lying by the side of the railway line. Injured persons were sent for medical examination to Community Health Centre, Pandhurna, where Dr. K.R. Shakya (P.W. 2) examined their injuries. According to the medical report of Jijabai (Ex. P-3), she had suffered stab wound on thigh, several stab wounds on left arm, two stab wounds on her breast, one incised wound on right hand finger and one incised wound on right hand wrist. All the injuries were found to be simple in nature. On the same day Shashikala, wife of Ramkrishna, was also examined. As per her medical examination report (Ex. P-5), she was found to have sustained one incised wound on left forearm, two incised wounds on right arm and one abrasion on forehead. All the injuries were found to be simple in nature. On examination of injured Ramkrishna doctor found three incised injuries on his nose, left forearm and on right upper arm, respectively and one abrasion on right arm. All these injuries were simple in nature. The injury report of Ramkrishna is Ex. P-7.
4. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Committal Court and the case was thereafter committed for trial. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused persons under Sections 452, 324, 506B and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded false implication due to enmity. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove the charges.
5. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence held that the accused persons had caused injuries to complainant and other injured persons after entering into their residential house, however, in view of the medical evidence that none of the injuries-was dangerous to life and there had been no intention to cause death, acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and instead held them guilty under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the appeal appellant/accused Babarao died, hence, his appeal has abated.
6. With respect to appellant Govinda learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity and no independent evidence has been produced by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused as all the witnesses belong to the family of complainant Jijabai. On the other hand, learned Dy. Advocate General has submitted that there is enormous evidence in the case. There is evidence of injured witnesses, such is corroborated by the medical evidence as such the judgment of conviction required no interference.
7. I have carefully gone through the evidence on record. From the evidence of P.W. 4 Jijabai, P.W. 7 Ramkrishna and P.W. 8 Shashikalabai it has been proved that while they were inside their house, accused persons had committed trespass into their house armed with deadly weapons and assaulted them, whereby, they had suffered numerous injuries by sharp edged weapons. The evidence of these injured witnesses is amply corroborated by the evidence of Dr. K.R. Shakya (P.W. 2), who had examined the injuries of these injured persons. From the evidence of Dr. Shakya it is proved that Jijabai, Shashikala and Ramkrishna had suffered numerous injuries by sharp edged weapons.
8. So far as the question of presence of independent witnesses is concerned, it has to be seen that the incident had occurred inside the house of the complainant and that too at the late hours of night, i.e:, 11.00 o’clock in the night. It is beyond comprehension that at such late hours of night when the incident had occurred inside the room any outsider person would be available to witness the incident.
9. The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has rightly held the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. From the evidence of P.W. 4 Jijabai it is also clear that when the accused persons had entered the house, they had intimidated the injured that they had come to kill her. In such circumstances, the offence under Section 506B, IPC is also clearly made out against the appellant.
10. So far as the evidence of seizure of the sword from the possession of the appellant Govinda is concerned, P.W. 6 C.L. Tripathi, Sub-Inspector, has stated that he had seized the sword lying near the house of the complainant from the bushes growing by the side of drain. From the evidence on record, it appears that the alleged sword had been seized from an open place accessible to all, therefore, it is not possible to hold that it was in the exclusive knowledge or possession of the accused Govinda. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act is not justified.
11. In view of the above discussion, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 452, 506B and 324 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed, however, the conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act is set aside. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant Govinda is the first offender having no bad antecedents, therefore, deserves leniency in the matter of sentence.
12. Considering the fact that the incident is of the year 1998 and the fact that the appellant is the first offender, his sentences under Sections 452, 506B and 324 of the Indian Penal Code are reduced to the period of imprisonment for six months on each count. All the sentences shall run concurrently.