w ~,\ Luxxvnx; w: ‘ URT?’ REE ' : L4, ax { ll!l’NH||||NllHl||||ll|||||Ill i CF0000061 88 Sirgle Bench (mmmaxQ {5’ V P I¥ TI-W‘ HIGH ”QUE’I‘ 9F JUDILJATUBE. AT J'AB§L?UR Criminai Agmeal No. IOZéL’1997 $r1mwgea1 unaer Section 374(2Ior the cmie 9.: Crimnal. Prawwg' %.1ni alias Manna $1415 \ VKm’ shna Kmar l s/a 3hri Mahendra Nath Swim égw abou‘b 23 years, Gccupation— student, r/e, Gondpara, P.S. City Kenyan, Bistrict Bilaspur (MP) I 3ppe11ant i > mama ”mw.m._ . .. u. w... t w Ola mo wwN n um.- w *) A7 aw? ky Ski §> § 'Sta‘te of Madhya l‘raéesh through S-H-Oo, police- statioza- city K'otwali, Bilaspur Wolf.) Non— applicant Cnnv axlan u s 307 13b $e +en¢$ 'Lol- for 3 years, wth fine of 'Fs.200/‘, in dafauw, 11: of fine, further S l. rm, 2 montm‘ ‘ > r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Criminal Appeal No. 1042/1997 Daini alias Munna alias Krishna Kumar Versus State of Madhya Pradesh APPELLANT RESPONDENT Shri Rajiv Shrivastava counsel for the appellant. . 'Smt; Smita Ghai PL for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (29.04.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated '2.5.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 151/1995 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 200/—, in default o payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 6.12.1993 FIR Ex. P-1 was lodged by Vimal Mishra (PW-1) alleging that on that day at about 8.45 p.m. when he was returning home along with his friends Rajesh Soni (PW-5) and Deepak Agrawal (PW-6), near Lala Lajpat Rai School, he was stopped, abused and assaulted by the accused/appellant with chain- lock as a result of which he sustained injuries on his temporal region. Based ,on this FIR, offences under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B IPC were registered against him and after completion of investigation aha/Ian was filed by the police on 26.12.1993 for the offences under sections 294 and 307 IPC. The Court below however framed the charge against the appellant only under Section 307 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Eu, ‘3 Wmt‘g f wag-— Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges leveiied against him and pleaded his innocence and false impiication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and ‘sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. 5. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 307 IPC and at best the act attributed to the appellant would fall under Section 323 IPC as while replying to the query put to Dr. R.R. Tiwari (PW-10) has stated that he did not remember whether all the medical documents of the victim were shown to him or not or that he was hospitalised for 11 days. He submits that the incident had taken place in the year 1993 and that at the relevant time the appellant was a student. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and-submits that considering the serious condition of the victim, he was referred to Sector — 9 hospital at Bhilai where he remained hospitalised for 11 days. She further submits that the accused/appellant caused injury on the vital part of the victim and that the query report Ex. P-9A makes it clear that injury caused on the vital part of the victim was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 7. Vimal Mishra — the victim (PW—1) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident when he was coming from Khaparganj along with Rajesh Soni (PW-5) and Deepak Agrawal (PW—6), near a school accused/appellant stopped him, hurled filthy abuses at him and threatening to kill him inflicted injury on his left temple with the chain-Iock‘ as a result of which he started bleeding profusely and Was not able to see anything. He has stated that when Rajesh Soni (PW—5) and Deepak Agrawal (PW-6) intervened in the-matter, the accused/appellant left the spot saying that “Aaj to tu bach gaya” meaning thereby (somehow he survived that day). Thereafter, this witness is said to have been shifted to the hospital where he took treatment from Dr. Chaterjee and then the report Ex. P-1 was lodged. This witness has further stated that subsequently he was referred to Dharam hospital where he was “3" examined by Dr. Tiwari and then he was referred to Sector - 9 hospital at Bhilai where he remained hospitaiised for 11-12 days. According to this witness, even after being discharged from the hospital, he was feeling severe headache and hearing capacity of his left ear had also become deficient. ln cross examination also this witness remained very mm to the statement made by him in the examination in chief. Rajesh Soni (PW~5) and Deepak Agrawal (PW—6) have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. Ashok Meghani (PW—2) is the witness to memorandum Ex.P-2 and the seizure of chain-lock made under Ex. P-3. Shekhar Pal (PW-3) is the witness to seizure of discharge ticket and OPD ticket of the victim of Bhilai Steel Plant and referral documents prepared by Dr. R.R. Tiwari of Bilaspur. Dr. Shekhar Chaterjee (PW—4) who had drst medically examined the victim on 6.12.1993 has stated that he found lacerated wound on his temporal region and advised for x-ray. Sobodh Hiran (PW-7) is the neuro— surgeon who had operated upon the victim at Sector —- 9 Hospital, Bhilai has stated in his evidence that the victim was-referred to him from Bilaspur. According to him, by way of surgical operation clot was removed from the temporal region of the victim and that he was discharged on 18.12.1993. This witness has also stated that Ex. P-6 is the bed head ticket and Ex. P—7 is the discharge ticket of the victim. lshaq Khalko (PW— 8) is the witness who recorded FIR Ex. P-1. Ashok Kumar Joshi (PW-9) is the investigating officer who has supported the case of the prosecution. Dr. RR. Tiwari (PW—10) is the witness who had attended the victim in Dharam Hospital, Bilaspur. According to this witness, at the time of admission the patient was compiaining vomiting and that injury was there on his head. He has stated that there was possibility of cerebrai congestion and hemorrhage and that the patient was referred to Sector — 9 Hospital, Bhilai vide Ex. P-8. According to him, vide Ex. P-9 a query was put to'him which he answered in positive stating that the victim had suffered injury on vital part, which was sufficient to cause death had proper treatment not been made available to him. 8. I Discharge ticket Ex. P-7 makes it ciear that the victim was operated upon and craniotomy i.e. evacuation of EDH from the frontal temporal 7.v We“ ._. (/_ region was done. Dictionary meaning of Craniotomy is surgical operation involving opening of skull. 9. Minute examination of the material available on record makes) it clear that on the date of incident, accused/appellant had caused dangerous injuries on the vital part of the victim (PW-1). Grievousness of the injuries sustained by the victim can be deciphered from the fact that he was referred to Sector — 9 hospital, Bhilai, CT scan was performed on him, he was operated upon and remained hospitalised for 11-12 days. According to the victim himself, even 'after the discharge from the hospital, he feels certain impairment in his hearing capacity. Moreover, the medical evidence shows that the injuries suffered by the victim could have been dangerous to life had proper medical treatment'would not have been available to him in time. 10. Cumulative effect of the evidence collected by the prosecution makes this Court to take a view that the trial Court has not committed any error in cenvicting the accused/appellant under Section 307 IPC by the judgment impugned and that being so the findings recorded by the Court below do not call for any interference from this Court. 11. Consequently, the appeal is without substance and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such. Judgment impugned is hereby maintained. Accused/appellant is reported to be on bail. Bail bonds furnished by him stand cancelled. He be sent to jail forthwith to serve out the remader of the sentence. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge in