® WCaS. COURT OP CHHATnSGARH. BaASPUR (Sriminal Anned Mo- 1043 af 2001 APPBLLANT RB8KMIDBMT Amlu Ram» s/o Mangpri Raxx^ 45 years, occupatton ^riculture, rcsident ofviBage Asdkaia, Madvasaxaiy R>lice Statk>ii. Kamle&hwarpur, Distt. Sargiuja (C.G<) Vwu» State of Chhattisgarii, Tluough Policc Station- Kaxxilcshwaxpur, DistfcSarguja (C.G.) APPBLLANT Crlminal Amical Mo. 1044 of2001 Mangaru Ram, s/o Amlu, a®edabout 25 yeara, €>ccupationAgdculttire, resident of viUagc Aakaia, Madvasared, Police Station. Kamfeahwarpur, Distfc Saiyuja (C.G.) RB8POMDBKT State of Clihattisgarfi, Through Poljcc Station- Kamleshwarpur, Distt.Seu'guja (C.G.) APPBLLANT RBSPOilDBNT Mangal Sai, s/o Bakhori, a^cd about 50 yeara. occupation Agriculturc, rcsidcnt of village Askara, Madvasarsd, Pottcc Statk>n. Kamlcshwarpur, Distfc Sarguja (C.G.) Vwua State of Chhatdsgarii, Throi^h PoUcc Statfon- Kaanleshwarpur, DistfcSaxyija (C.G.) None for the appeflants. Shri N.K. Mehta, Pand Lawyer, for tihe Stete. ^rc^ JUDCaiBMT (16^)7.2007) (1) These are fhe 3 jafl appeate arising out of a coxninon judgnaent dated 15.10.2001 passcd by fhc lrt AddL Sessaons Judge^ Ambikapur, in S.T.NO. 196/1999, whcreby flae appeBante were convicted u/s 325/34 I.P.C., ami senteirccd to undergo R.I. for 3-3 yeara and to pay a fuac of Rs.500-500/-, ia default of paymcnt offine, to fiuther uxideiy) R.L for 6-6 months. (2) In these <»scs^ fhe appdlants havc already UDdcrgonc their sentences, therefore, for hearing, notices were issucd to them, on which cvea after sennoc, no aoe cauacd appearance on behalfofappellants Amluram A» Maiigaru Ram whereas a report has been received that appeUant Maa^al Sai has dicd. Sinoe no steps have beeii taten fer substitution ofMaagal Sai, his appeal (Cr.A.No. 1045/2001) atands abated and fhc judgment ia bcmg passed on remaming two appeals fifcd on bchatf of AiyeUants Ainlu Raiii and Maxigani RanL (3) Ttie ^ppeUants were chai^ed u/s 307 read witfa section 34 of I.P.C. The bricf facta are that injured Mungla Ram (P.W.l), was faavuig JTiiTjnv^il relEdions wifhi thc fi^ppeUants on aomc land dispute. On 27.3.1999^ at about 8 p-m., wlien he was retunung back to lus housc, the appcBants armed with dcadfy wcapons like fatfu' aad arrow stopped him on tbe way aod steurted assaultua^ him. On fhis, he feU dowxi on the g?x>und and fhe Tcfnyc^ which he was holdiag, slipped from his haods, which was pickcd up by appeflant Mangpni, who gave a Tangia blow on his hcad. On hue and cxy, his wife Bifeuya Bai (P.W.8) and Raoa Kuwari (P.W,10) came over fhere and took him to their house and thereafier, a report Ex.P.1 was lodged. Thc vk?tim was seiit for uiedical exaiDiiiatk>n and was exaiEuned by Dr» G.Prasad (P.W.3) who noticed fhe foUowing uijuries and prepared his report Ex.P.4. ^) )1.1044/2001 & 1045/2001 1. An iiicised wouad ia size ofl x %x % cm aa fhe anterior surfacc of teft leg in middte l/3<d part, ctotted blood prcscnfc 2. A laceTated wound m sizc of^x Ya x % cm on the anterior sur&ce of lcft leg on fhc upper l/3rd part, diy, obliquety placed. 3. Swellmg ofright elbow joint and upper halfpart ofiight fore arm. Two abrasions - (^ 5 x 12 cm & (b) 3 x4 cm. both irregular in shapc and obliquefy placed, ctotted btood present 4. Oue abrasion on lateral siufacc of right upper arm on miridle l/3rd part, in size of 2 x 3 cni, dxy, cl&tted blood present 5. One lacerated wound on fhc lcfit parietal bone in size of6 x % x V< Cms., obliquety placed wifh oozing (blccdiD^I present 6. Oxie lacerated wound on fhc occipital bonc in size of5 x Y<x Y< Cms., obliquefy placed with oozsng present. 7. Tlxere was complaint ofpain on tfac back but no exteraal iajurics were seea. According to him^ injuries no. 1 to 4 wcre simple in nature and for uyuiy iao.5 & 6, he advised for X-Ray Examination. On furfher exaxniaation, the victim was sent to Dr.M.K.Jain (P.W.2) who foimd fhat fhere was no b<my iajiuy so far as skuU was conceraed. Howcver, fbc victim has sustaincd fiacture of his right ulna bone. He gave lus report Ex.P.2. The X-Ray plates (Ex.P.3) were also coflccted. After usual investigation fhe chargc sheet was fifcd, (4) On trial, fhc teamed Sessions Judge acquitted fhe ^tpellants for thc ofience punishablc u/s 307/34 I.P.C., however, on the basis of evidencc of fhc vkrtiia as weU as eye witaaesses and the two Doctora, fhey were convk?ted u/s 325/34 ^ 1044^001 & 1045/2001 I.P.C. and sentcoccd to undergo ixnprisonmcnt ami to pay fuac as aforeiueiitk>ned< (5| VkAim Mungla Ram (P.W.l) has stated fhat when he was returmng to his hou^ on fhe fateful day^ he was stoppcd on the way by fhe appellants who assaulted hiin with thc ticlp of lctOu^ arrow aiid Tan^L He has also statod fhc detaiils as to h€3W fhe assault took place, and who gave which mjury. His evidcnce is supported by fhe evidciice ofhis wife Bifaya Bai (P.W.8) and his daughter Ram Kuwari (P.W.10). Thc above evkience of thc vrctim is further supported by the evideace of DT.G. Prasad (P.W.3) & Dr.M.K. Jain (P.W.2)» who faave mcdicalty exammcd him on thc requisitmn offhe poUoe. (6) The Scssions Court has hdd thc evidencc of fhe VK?tim to be tnistworthy and ateo to be supportod by fhe eviddice of two eye witoesses and fhc Doctora. Even after going thiough their evidence, it does not appear fhat either a coiacocted stoiy was prcpared or there is a case offalse iDaipUcation. Their evidence is oatural, cogent, reliable and trustworthy, On fhe basis offhe evidence of fhe Doctors, fhe trial Court took fhis view ffaat in fact, fhis was not a inatter of attem.ptmg the life of the victim aad taking such vicw, it recordcd fhc finding of acquittal u/s 307/34 I.P.C., and has convictcd the ^>pellaats u/ss 325/34 I.P.C. (7) In tfae matter of Smfu Praaad -y»-State •fBlhar ASR 196S &C» 843. ihe Apex Court held that in oidcr to bring the oflfence home to accused, the prosccution must establish that his iutention was one of fhe three kmds mcntk>ned ia scction 300 I.P.C. The state of mind of fhe accused has to bc deduced fmm ftiirmiinrting circumstances aiid niotive would be a relcvant circuiastaiice cuid wherc thc evidaioc is not suflBcicnt to establish wifh ccrtainty, existence of requisite iatention of kaowledge of accused, the accused can be comncted onfy u/s 324 and not u/s 307 IPC. Agpm in fhc matter of Smrt SSahun. Crinrinal AnnealftNo 1043/2001- lAAA/MOl A 1045/2001 & State of ammuui -Va- auiehMr aiswh <BMI otlwrs AIR 1988 S.C. -31^7, fhe Apex Court further hekl that u/s 307 IPC, what fhe court has to sce is, whethcr fhc act irrespectwe of its result, was done witfa tfae iatention or knxjwledge and under circuiastaaces mLenffoned in fhat section. Thc intention or knowledge of fhe accused niust be such as is necessaiy to constitute murder. Wifhout this mgredient beiag established, there can be no oflfence of <<atteiiipt to niurder^. U/s 307 the intention precedes fhie act attributed to accused. Therefore, fhe iatention is to be gafhered fnoni all ciicumstances, and not laerely &OJDL the consequenc^s that ensue. The nature of tbe weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for fhe crune, severity of the btow, tfae part of the body where the mjuiy is mflicted are some of fhe fectora fhat may be taken into consideratun to determine tihe mtentk>n. (8) After going through fhe entire evidence and afiber hearing leanied counsel for the State, I am of fhe opuubn that the convictk)n axad scntence awaided by tfhe Sessions Court does iiot warrant interferexice by fhis Court The appeals have 110 merits and the saane are liable to be dismissed. (9) In the result, Cr.A.No. 1043/2001 & Cr.A.No. 1044/2001 are dismissed on xnerits whereas Cr.A-No. 1045/01 ia dismisaed asabated. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rao