{"id":268438,"date":"2010-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-17T08:28:09","modified_gmt":"2017-07-17T02:58:09","slug":"arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Arman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Arman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2010<\/div>\n
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH,\n                JABALPUR\n\n\nDIVISION BENCH:                Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Saksena\n                                              &\n                               Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta, JJ.\n\n\n              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.56 OF 2008\n\n                          Arman Khan & others\n                                   Vs.\n                        State of Madhya Pradesh.\n\n\n             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.422 OF 2008\n\n                        State of Madhya Pradesh.\n                                   Vs.\n                         Arman Khan & others.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nCr.A.No.56\/2008\nShri Amit Dubey, Advocate for the appellants.\nShri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent-\nState.\nShri Manish Datt, Advocate for the complainant.\n\nCr.A.No.422\/2008\nShri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the appellant-\nState.\nShri Amit Dubey, Advocate for the respondents.\nShri Manish Datt, Advocate for the complainant.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                                  JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     (Delivered on this the 28th day of September, 2010)<\/p>\n
PER: N.K.GUPTA,J.\n<\/p>\n
\n
               Since both the above appeals arise out of<\/p>\n
common impugned judgment, this judgment shall govern<\/p>\n
disposal of both the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
                               Cr.A.No.56\/2008 & Cr.A.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
(1) Cr.No.56\/2008<\/p>\n
            This criminal appeal under Section 374(2)<\/a> of<\/p>\n
the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by<\/p>\n
the     appellants    being   aggrieved   by   the   impugned<\/p>\n
judgment      dated    19\/12\/2007    passed     by   the   First<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat<\/p>\n
in ST No.31\/2004, whereby the each appellant has been<\/p>\n
convicted for commission of offence under Section 307<\/a><\/p>\n
read with Section 34<\/a> of IPC and inflicted sentence of<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.500\/- each, in default each of the appellants has to<\/p>\n
undergo additional imprisonment for three months.<\/p>\n
(2) Cr.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
            This criminal appeal under Section 377<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the<\/p>\n
State    of Madhya      Pradesh being      aggrieved    by the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment dated 19\/12\/2007 passed by the First<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat<\/p>\n
in ST No.31\/2004 for enhancement of the sentence of the<\/p>\n
respondents Arman Khan and Salman Khan.<\/p>\n
3.          The prosecution case, in short, is that 2-3 days<\/p>\n
prior to 24\/9\/2003, accused Arman Khan had pushed D.P.<\/p>\n
Mishra, Advocate (PW-2) in the Court premises and some<\/p>\n
hot exchange of the words had taken place between<\/p>\n
them. On 24\/9\/2003 when Vilas Mishra (PW-10) with his
\n                              3<\/span>
\n                            Cr.A.No.56\/2008 & Cr.A.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
brothers Amit Mishra (PW-11) and Manish Mishra were<\/p>\n
passing from the road by motorcycle near the house of<\/p>\n
accused Arman Khan, were stopped by accused Arman<\/p>\n
Khan, Salman Khan, Samarjeet and Raju @ Rajesh. All<\/p>\n
the accused started assaulting these three victims, but<\/p>\n
Vilas Mishra could manage to escape, whereas other two<\/p>\n
victims sustained injuries. Ultimately, Manish and Amit<\/p>\n
were   brought   to   the   hospital   for   their   medical<\/p>\n
examination and treatment. A separate sessions trial was<\/p>\n
initiated for that incident. When the injured Vilas went to<\/p>\n
the hospital with his father D.P. Mishra to look for his<\/p>\n
brothers, all the accused persons started shouting that<\/p>\n
Vilas has come and let him be finished. The accused<\/p>\n
persons started assaulting the injured Vilas by kicks and<\/p>\n
fists. Vilas ran away and took shelter in operation<\/p>\n
theater, but all the accused persons entered into the<\/p>\n
operation theater and again started assaulting. Accused<\/p>\n
Salman assaulted Vilas by a dressing tray kept in<\/p>\n
Operation Theater (for short “O.T.”) and caused injury on<\/p>\n
his head, whereas accused Samarjeet took dressing<\/p>\n
scissors from the tray and gave 5-6 stab blows by scissors<\/p>\n
to injured Vilas causing various injuries in his abdomen<\/p>\n
and other places of the body. Accused Arman Khan and<\/p>\n
Raju again assaulted Vilas by kicks and fists. Amit,<\/p>\n
brother of injured Vilas lodged an FIR Ex.P.14 at Police
\n                             4<\/span>
\n                           Cr.A.No.56\/2008 & Cr.A.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
Station Waraseoni District Balaghat, which was written<\/p>\n
by ASI V.P.Tiwari (PW-13), who came in the hospital after<\/p>\n
getting information regarding quarrel. injured Vilas was<\/p>\n
examined by Dr. V.K. Choudhary (PW-5) and since he had<\/p>\n
sustained injuries in the abdomen which resulted in<\/p>\n
perforation, he was referred to the District Hospital,<\/p>\n
Balaghat where Dr. K.K.Khosla (PW-12) examined injured<\/p>\n
Vilas and found that it was a serious case of perforation,<\/p>\n
so he referred him to the Medical College, Nagpur and<\/p>\n
ultimately Vilas was taken to Shatah Aayu Hospital,<\/p>\n
Nagpur where Dr. Deshraj (PW-7) operated him, who<\/p>\n
found perforation at 7-8 places in the intestine of Vilas<\/p>\n
and repaired the same and stitched various wounds.<\/p>\n
4.        The appellants-accused abjured their guilt and<\/p>\n
took defence that actually the injured Vilas and his<\/p>\n
brothers came with preparation of assault at the house of<\/p>\n
Arman Khan and assaulted Arman Khan brutally. He was<\/p>\n
saved by the co-accused persons. When Arman Khan was<\/p>\n
taken to the hospital, the complainant party tried to make<\/p>\n
a false case against the present accused persons. No<\/p>\n
incident took place in the operation threatre. It was also<\/p>\n
alleged before the trial Court that Salman Khan was out<\/p>\n
of station at the time of incident and he was not present<\/p>\n
at the scene of crime. They examined three defence<\/p>\n
witnesses namely Dr. V.K. Choudhary (DW-1), Dr. Sanjay
\n                              5<\/span>
\n                            Cr.A.No.56\/2008 & Cr.A.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
Shukla (DW-2) and H.C. Komal Singh (DW-3) to prove the<\/p>\n
injuries of Arman Khan and counter FIR of the case.<\/p>\n
5.        On considering the evidence adduced before<\/p>\n
the trial Court and the defence taken by the accused<\/p>\n
persons, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge<\/p>\n
passed the impugned judgment and inflicted sentence to<\/p>\n
the accused persons in the aforesaid manner.<\/p>\n
6.        We have heard learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
7.        Learned counsel for the appellants (accused)<\/p>\n
has submitted that injuries of injured Vilas were not fatal.<\/p>\n
In support of his contention, he has submitted that no<\/p>\n
fracture was received by Vilas.    The    dressing scissors<\/p>\n
was   very small,    by which no fatal injury could be<\/p>\n
caused.\n<\/p>\n
8.        In the light of the argument, if medical<\/p>\n
evidence is considered, then it would be clear from the<\/p>\n
evidence of Dr.V.K.Choudhary (PW-5), who examined<\/p>\n
injured Vilas for the first time and gave MLC report<\/p>\n
Ex.P-5, that Vilas sustained five stab wounds in the<\/p>\n
abdomen, each of which was 2 cm deep approx. He found<\/p>\n
incised wounds on left face and right arm. According to<\/p>\n
his opinion, such injuries could be caused by sharp<\/p>\n
cutting instrument like scissors. He also found one<\/p>\n
lacerated wound on the head of injured Vilas, which could<\/p>\n
be caused by hard and blunt object. Ultimately Dr.
\n                               6<\/span>
\n                             Cr.A.No.56\/2008 & Cr.A.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
Deshraj (PW-7) performed surgery on injured Vilas. He<\/p>\n
found that intestines of Vilas were found damaged at 7-8<\/p>\n
places. There was a big hole in the intestine, 1 cm in size.<\/p>\n
Out of these perforations, blood and fecal matter was<\/p>\n
found in the outer surface of intestine. He gave clear cut<\/p>\n
opinion that if operation was not performed then Vilas<\/p>\n
may die in natural course.    Nothing has been brought in<\/p>\n
the cross examination of Dr. Deshraj (PW-7) by which it<\/p>\n
can be said that his opinion is not acceptable, therefore,<\/p>\n
by the expert opinion of Dr. V.K.Choudhary (PW-5) and<\/p>\n
Dr. Deshraj (PW-7), it is apparent that injuries caused to<\/p>\n
the injured Vilas were fatal in nature.\n<\/p>\n
9.        Learned counsel for the appellants (accused)<\/p>\n
has submitted that the complainant lodged a concocted<\/p>\n
FIR against the appellants (accused). Some of the<\/p>\n
appellants were not present at the time of incident.<\/p>\n
Accused Salman Khan was out of station, whereas<\/p>\n
accused Raju @ Rajesh had already lost one of his arm<\/p>\n
prior to the incident and he could not assault in such a<\/p>\n
manner. Accused Arman Khan had sustained grievous<\/p>\n
injuries in the incident, and therefore, it was not possible<\/p>\n
for him to participate in the incident.\n<\/p>\n
10.       The contention of the appellants (accused)<\/p>\n
regarding their act as argued by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants cannot be accepted in toto. The appellants in
\n                             7<\/span>
\n                            Cr.A.No.56\/2008 & Cr.A.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
the trial Court have produced 2-3 witnesses in their<\/p>\n
defence, out of them Head Constable Komal Singh (DW-3)<\/p>\n
has produced a Rojnamcha Ex.D-7, in which a report has<\/p>\n
been lodged by Usman Khan, brother of accused Arman<\/p>\n
Khan, in which he has mentioned that accused Salman<\/p>\n
Khan saved injured Arman Khan in the incident, which<\/p>\n
took place in the house of Arman Khan. Therefore, by the<\/p>\n
document Ex.D-7, it is clear that alibi of Salman Khan is<\/p>\n
not true. He was very much present in the previous<\/p>\n
incident, and therefore, it is natural that he would have<\/p>\n
visited hospital with Arman Khan also.\n<\/p>\n
11.       In the present case, D.P. Mishra (PW-2), Lokesh<\/p>\n
(PW-8), Anoop Choubey (PW-9), Vilas Mishra (PW-10),<\/p>\n
Amit Mishra (PW-11) and Dhiraj Shendre (PW-15) were<\/p>\n
examined as eye-witnesses. Out of these witnesses,<\/p>\n
Lokesh (PW-8) and Anoop Choubey (PW-9) have turned<\/p>\n
hostile. They did not support the prosecution case,<\/p>\n
whereas Dhiraj Shendre (PW-15) seems to be a tutored<\/p>\n
witness. According to Dhiraj Shendre, incident took place<\/p>\n
in the OPD of the hospital, whereas incident took place in<\/p>\n
O.T. of the hospital, therefore, the evidence of witness<\/p>\n
Dhiraj   Shendre   cannot   be     relied   upon.   Similarly,<\/p>\n
D.P.Mishra   (PW-2)   and   Amit    Mishra    (PW-11)    have<\/p>\n
claimed that they saw the incident from the window of<\/p>\n
the O.T., whereas it was not reasonably possible to see
\n                                8<\/span>
\n                               Cr.A.No.56\/2008 & Cr.A.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
the incident from the windows, because from the position<\/p>\n
of the windows in O.T. as shown in the map Ex.P-2, it is<\/p>\n
clear that there were 2-3 corridors in the hospital. The<\/p>\n
corridors were connected with labour room and OT room.<\/p>\n
There was no window in the corridors. Windows, which<\/p>\n
were in the OT room, opened in the courtyard and no<\/p>\n
gate has been shown in the map by which it can be said<\/p>\n
that D.P. Mishra (PW-2) and Amit Mishra (PW-11) could<\/p>\n
go to the courtyard near the windows. However, at the<\/p>\n
time of preparation Ex.P-2, D.P.Mishra (PW-2) has shown<\/p>\n
the window, by which he has seen the incident.<\/p>\n
12.         Under    these   circumstances,      only    reliable<\/p>\n
witnesses remained is injured Vilas Mishra (PW-10), who<\/p>\n
himself has stated that Salman Khan assaulted him with<\/p>\n
dressing tray on his head. He has not mentioned that any<\/p>\n
second assault had been given by Salman Khan. He<\/p>\n
further deposed that accused Samarjeet and Arman Khan<\/p>\n
assaulted    him    with   scissors   causing   injury   in   his<\/p>\n
abdomen, face and other places, whereas the accused<\/p>\n
Raju assaulted him by kicks and fists. Witness D.P.<\/p>\n
Mishra (PW-2) has accepted in para 13 of his statement<\/p>\n
that Raju has lost his one arm prior to this incident,<\/p>\n
therefore, it was not possible for Raju to participate in<\/p>\n
such incident. There was no injury shown by Dr. V.K.<\/p>\n
Choudhary (PW-5) in confirmation of that assault caused
\n                                9<\/span>
\n                              Cr.A.No.56\/2008 & Cr.A.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
by accused Raju, therefore, it is highly doubtful that<\/p>\n
accused Raju has assaulted the injured Vilas in any<\/p>\n
manner.\n<\/p>\n
13.        Amit Mishra (PW-11), brother of injured Vilas<\/p>\n
Mishra has lodged Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-14, just after the<\/p>\n
incident, in which he has stated that accused Samarjeet<\/p>\n
assaulted Vilas by a dressing scissors, but no allegation<\/p>\n
against Arman Khan has been made in the FIR that he<\/p>\n
assaulted Vilas with the help of dressing scissors,<\/p>\n
therefore, the statement of various witnesses that the<\/p>\n
accused Arman Khan assaulted Vilas by scissors seems to<\/p>\n
be after thought. Arman Khan did not assault the injured<\/p>\n
Vilas by    scissors.   No eye-witness informed the trial<\/p>\n
Court that Arman Khan had assaulted the injured Vilas by<\/p>\n
kicks and fists. If the evidence given by Dr. V.K.<\/p>\n
Choudhary (DW-1), the defence witness is considered in<\/p>\n
the present context, then it would be clear that prior to<\/p>\n
this incident, Arman Khan had already been brought to<\/p>\n
the hospital in a badly injured condition and he was being<\/p>\n
examined by Dr. Choudhary just before the incident and<\/p>\n
he was taking treatment at that time, therefore, it was<\/p>\n
not possible for Arman Khan in such a condition that he<\/p>\n
could participate in the incident, hence presence of<\/p>\n
Arman      Khan   in    the   incident   becomes     doubtful.<\/p>\n
However, by the evidence of injured Vilas,          version of
\n                                   10<\/span>
\n                              Cr.A.No.56\/2008 & Cr.A.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
FIR, and the corresponding injuries sustained by Vilas, it<\/p>\n
is proved that the accused Samarjeet caused 5-7 injuries<\/p>\n
to Vilas by the dressing scissors. Out of these injuries,<\/p>\n
five injuries were caused in the abdomen of Vilas and<\/p>\n
they were fatal.\n<\/p>\n
14.       In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our<\/p>\n
opinion, it is not   proved beyond reasonable doubt that<\/p>\n
the   accused      Raju   alias        Rajesh   or   Arman   Khan<\/p>\n
participated in the incident, however it is proved beyond<\/p>\n
reasonable doubt that accused Samarjeet assaulted the<\/p>\n
injured Vilas by dressing scissors brutally and caused<\/p>\n
fatal injury to injured Vilas, whereas accused Salman<\/p>\n
Khan assaulted injured Vilas only once by dressing tray<\/p>\n
causing a simple injury on his head.\n<\/p>\n
15.       Learned counsel for the appellants (accused)<\/p>\n
has submitted that only by the nature of injuries, act of<\/p>\n
the accused cannot be ascertained. No accused was<\/p>\n
armed when they entered into the O.T. of the hospital,<\/p>\n
and therefore, there was no intention of these accused-<\/p>\n
appellants to cause death of victim Vilas. He placed<\/p>\n
reliance on the case law “State of MP Vs. Saleem @<\/p>\n
Chamaru & another” [(2005) 5 SCC 554], in which it<\/p>\n
is held that for constitution of offence under Section 307<\/a><\/p>\n
of IPC, intention or knowledge is important and injury is
\n                                11<\/span>
\n                               Cr.A.No.56\/2008 & Cr.A.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
not so important. Nature of injury can be used to assess<\/p>\n
the intention of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
16.       In the present case the main assailant is<\/p>\n
accused Samarjeet, who caused fatal injuries to the<\/p>\n
injured Vilas in his abdomen. By the seizure memo<\/p>\n
Ex.P-4, the size of the scissor was found to be of 6 \u00bd”. Dr.<\/p>\n
Choudhary    found the     depth of various         wounds    in<\/p>\n
abdomen to be 2 cm each. By these facts, it is clear that<\/p>\n
accused Samarjeet assaulted injured Vilas by scissor in a<\/p>\n
forceful manner. Even he did not stop his act after giving<\/p>\n
1-2 blows. He gave more than 5 scissors blows, which<\/p>\n
were on the vital part of the body i.e. abdomen, therefore,<\/p>\n
by the act of accused Samarjeet, his intention can be<\/p>\n
assessed. With the help of nature of injuries and the act<\/p>\n
of accused Samarjeet, it can be said that he intended to<\/p>\n
cause death of injured Vilas, and therefore, he was guilty<\/p>\n
for commission of offence under Section 307<\/a> of IPC. The<\/p>\n
learned First Additional Sessions Judge rightly held him<\/p>\n
guilty for the said offence.\n<\/p>\n
17.       As discussed above, it is clear that it is highly<\/p>\n
doubtful that accused Arman Khan was present at the<\/p>\n
time of incident or in the occurrence, therefore, he is<\/p>\n
entitled to get benefit of doubt, hence it cannot be said<\/p>\n
that he assaulted the injured Vilas in any manner or he<\/p>\n
had any common intention with accused appellant
\n                                12<\/span>
\n                            Cr.A.No.56\/2008 & Cr.A.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
Samarjeet.   Therefore,   he        cannot   be   convicted   for<\/p>\n
commission of offence under Section 307<\/a> of IPC or any<\/p>\n
lesser offence of the same nature either directly or with<\/p>\n
the help of Section 34<\/a> of IPC. Similarly, it is clear that<\/p>\n
accused Raju alias Rajesh could not assault the injured<\/p>\n
Vilas with only one arm and no injury was found on the<\/p>\n
body of injured Vilas, therefore, no overt-act of Raju alias<\/p>\n
Rajesh is proved beyond reasonable doubt by which it<\/p>\n
could be said that he assaulted the injured Vilas or he<\/p>\n
had any common intention with accused Samarjeet. In<\/p>\n
such circumstances, accused Raju alias Rajesh also<\/p>\n
cannot be convicted for commission of offence under<\/p>\n
Section 307<\/a> of IPC or for inferior offence of the same<\/p>\n
nature either directly or with the help of Section 34<\/a> of<\/p>\n
IPC.\n<\/p>\n
18.       In the incident it is proved that accused Salman<\/p>\n
Khan assaulted the injured Vilas with a dressing tray and<\/p>\n
caused a simple injury in the very beginning. He did not<\/p>\n
assault further or after the assault made by accused<\/p>\n
Samarjeet. The act of the accused Samarjeet was so<\/p>\n
sudden, so that accused Salman Khan could not have<\/p>\n
imagined that Samarjeet would cause such stab injuries<\/p>\n
to the injured Vilas by scissors. Therefore, looking to the<\/p>\n
act of accused Salman Khan, it cannot be said that he had<\/p>\n
any common intention with accused Samarjeet for
\n                                13<\/span>
\n                               Cr.A.No.56\/2008 & Cr.A.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
commission of offence under Section 307<\/a> of IPC, hence<\/p>\n
accused-appellant Salman can be convicted for his own<\/p>\n
act, which comes under Section 323<\/a> of IPC instead of<\/p>\n
Section 307<\/a> of IPC. Since the charges for offence under<\/p>\n
Section 307<\/a> of IPC are higher, therefore, accused Salman<\/p>\n
Khan can be convicted for lower offence of the same<\/p>\n
nature.\n<\/p>\n
19.        Learned counsel for the State has argued in his<\/p>\n
appeal under Section 377<\/a> Cr.P.C that the acts of accused<\/p>\n
Arman Khan and Salman Khan are grave, and therefore,<\/p>\n
their sentences be enhanced. But after the discussion in<\/p>\n
foregoing paras it is clear that accused Arman Khan<\/p>\n
cannot be convicted for commission of offence under<\/p>\n
Section    307<\/a>   of   IPC,    therefore,     his   sentence    for<\/p>\n
commission of offence under Section 307<\/a> of IPC deserves<\/p>\n
to    be   quashed,   hence     there   is    no    question   of<\/p>\n
enhancement of sentence of accused Arman Khan.<\/p>\n
Similarly, the accused Salman Khan has not committed<\/p>\n
the offence punishable under Section 307<\/a> of IPC, and<\/p>\n
looking to his overt-act, he can be convicted for<\/p>\n
commission of offence under Section 323<\/a> of IPC only,<\/p>\n
therefore his sentence should be assessed afresh, hence<\/p>\n
his sentence cannot be enhanced as prayed by learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the State. Under these circumstances, State<\/p>\n
appeal deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
                              Cr.A.No.56\/2008 & Cr.A.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
20.        The appellants Arman Khan and Raju @ Rajesh<\/p>\n
cannot be convicted for any offence, therefore, the<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal No.56\/2008 in regard to them is hereby<\/p>\n
allowed.   Their conviction and sentence passed by the<\/p>\n
Court below under Section 307<\/a> read with Section 34<\/a> of<\/p>\n
IPC is hereby set aside. They are acquitted of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid charges. They are on bail. Their bail bonds<\/p>\n
stand discharged. They will be entitled to get the amount<\/p>\n
of fine back, if deposited in the trial Court.<\/p>\n
21.        Criminal Appeal in respect to accused Salman<\/p>\n
Khan is partly allowed. His conviction under Section 307<\/a><\/p>\n
of IPC is hereby set aside. He is acquitted from the<\/p>\n
charge under Section 307<\/a> read with Section 34<\/a> of IPC,<\/p>\n
but he is convicted for offence punishable under Section<\/p>\n
323<\/a> of IPC. So far as appeal of accused Samarjeet is<\/p>\n
concerned, his appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
22.        So far as sentence is concerned, it has come on<\/p>\n
record that the main victim Vilas has filed an application<\/p>\n
for compromise before this Court and has sought<\/p>\n
permission to do compromise. Though this Court has not<\/p>\n
given any permission, because the offence as alleged was<\/p>\n
not   compoundable,     but   it   was   directed    that   the<\/p>\n
consequence of that application may be considered at the<\/p>\n
time of awarding sentence, hence that fact should be<\/p>\n
considered in the present judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                                     15<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
                                    Cr.A.No.56\/2008 & Cr.A.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
23.            Since appellant-accused Salman Khan has been<\/p>\n
convicted       under     Section    323<\/a>    of   IPC,    taking    into<\/p>\n
consideration his compromise application and the fact<\/p>\n
that     the    offence    under     Section     323<\/a>    of   I.P.C.   is<\/p>\n
compoundable, he is acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
24.            Accused    Samarjeet      has     also   remained      in<\/p>\n
custody for a period near about 27-28 days in this case.<\/p>\n
Though considering the gravity of offence, his custody<\/p>\n
period seems to be lesser, but since the injured Vilas<\/p>\n
Mishra has pardoned the accused Samarjeet and has filed<\/p>\n
compromise application, he deserves not to be sent                    to<\/p>\n
jail again. However, it seems appropriate that fine<\/p>\n
imposed by the Court below be increased. Accordingly,<\/p>\n
his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of<\/p>\n
custody already undergone by him and the fine amount<\/p>\n
imposed by the Court below is hereby enhanced to<\/p>\n
Rs.25,000\/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). In default, he<\/p>\n
will undergo rigorous imprisonment of one and half<\/p>\n
years.\n<\/p>\n
25.            In the light of above discussion, the Criminal<\/p>\n
Appeal No.422\/2008 preferred by the State is dismissed.<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal No.56\/2008 is partly allowed.<\/p>\n
26.            It is made clear that no interference is called<\/p>\n
for in the impugned judgment regarding disposal of the
\n                            16<\/span>
\n                           Cr.A.No.56\/2008 & Cr.A.No.422\/2008<\/p>\n
property of the case passed by the learned First<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni District Balaghat.<\/p>\n
     (Rakesh Saksena)                       (N.K.Gupta)\n          Judge                                 Judge\n       28\/09\/2010                           28\/09\/2010.\n\n\n\nAnsari.\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Arman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2010 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Saksena & Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta, JJ. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.56 OF 2008 Arman Khan & others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.422 OF 2008 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nArman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-17T02:58:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T02:58:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3222,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Arman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T02:58:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Arman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-17T02:58:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T02:58:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010"},"wordCount":3222,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010","name":"Arman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T02:58:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arman-khan-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=268438"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268438\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}