APPELLANT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1199/2003 Mano Ram Nagesia VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh. Post for pronouncement of order on 20 /7/2009 ^, Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge APPELLANT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1199/2003 Mano Ram Nagesia son of Sinu Nagesia, aged 36 years occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Bakna, Ha. Mu. Barkela, Police Station Darima, District Sarguja, (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. (SB :Hon?ble Mr.T.P. Sharma J.) Present:-. Shri M.K. Baduri, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, P.L. for the State/respondent. JUDGEMENT (Passedon 20/7/2009) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/2/2003 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Sessions Trial No. 463/02 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code convicted and sentenced the appellant rigorous imprisonment for 71 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default additional rigors imprisonment for 6 months. Judgment is challenged on the ground that without any evidence and medical support to show that injury was dangerous to life the conviction and sentence is illegal. Prosecution case in brief :- on 31/7/2002 at about 4 p.m. present accused has locked the house of the injured PW1 Tilaso Bai which she was trying to open of the lock accused came with axe in intoxicated condition he assaulted by axe over the neck of the injured and caused injury. Injured PW1 Tilaso Bai immediate lodged the First Information Z-- Report vide Ex. P-1 . Plain soil and blood stain soil was recovered vide Ex. P-2 from the spot. Injured was sent for medical examination vide Ex. P- 6A she was examined by the PW8 Dr. O.P. Shrivastava vide Ex. P-6 and found 2 incised wound over the neck size of the injuries were 1 ^ x W and 1" x 1/4?\ She was admitted in the hospital appellant was taken into custody he made disclosure statement of axe vide Ex P-3. Axe was recovered froni the accused Vide Ex. P-4. Spot map was prepared Vide Ex P-9. Statement of the witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the code). After completion of the / investigation charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur who in turns committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer. 4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant prosecution examined as well as 9 witnesses. Statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearing against him innocency and false implication is claimed. After.. affording the opportunity of hearing to the parties learned AdditionalSessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Learned counsel for the parties are heard, Judgment impugned and record of Court below perused. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although appellant is in custody since 4/8/02 and has probably completed the sentence but prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show the complicity of the appellant in crime in question and has not established that the injury was fetal or dangerous to life. 6. 7. - ?- (^ 8. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and submits that present appellant is a person who has caused dangerous injury to injured Tilaso Bai and Court below has rightly convicted and sentence the appellant. 9. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties, I have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. Defense has not disputed the injury but has disputed the nature of injury and complicity of the accused otherwise also the injury of the Tilaso Bai is established by the statement of PW1 Tilaso Bai, PW2 Kulmet child witness, PW3 Sobhit, PW4 Chandersaya, PW5 Budkibai and PW8 Dr. O.P. Shrivastava, report Ex. P-6 and First Information Report is Ex. P-1. Two incised wound 1 ^ x 1/2?? and lw X 1A9) was found over both side of the neck of the injured. Doctor has not stated the nature of injury but the depth of injury i.e. W which has over the neck (vital part of the body) is sufficient to draw the -/ inference that injury was dangerous in nature and fetal to life. 10. In order to establish the complicity of the appellant with crime in question. Prosecution has examined PW1 injured Tilaso Bai who has specifically deposed that at the time of opining the lock the accused came with axe and assaulted over her neck twice. She lodged report and She was examined by the Doctor and was also admitted in hospital. PW2 Kulinet child witness has corroborated the testimony of Tilaso Bai. PW3 Sobhit, PW4 Chandersaya, PW5 Budkibai have deposed that they came to know that Tilaso Bai was assaulted by the accused and they had seen the injury ofthe Tilaso Bai. In her cross examination. PW1 Tilaso Bai has admitted relationship but denied the adverse suggestion. PW2 Kulmet has admitted in her cross examination that she has not seen the incident. In the cross examination of the PW1 Tilaso Bai appellant has ^- not been able to elicit anything to discredit her testimony. Her testimony is corrborated by promptly lodged report and medicinal evidence which inspire confidence and sufficient for drawing inference that appellant has caused 2 injury over the neck of the injured. 11. In order to convict the person under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. the prosecution is not required even to prove any injury. In the present case accused appellant has repeatedly caused 2 injuries by the axe over the neck of the injured which shows the intention of the accused. After appreciating the evidence available on record learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction is based on the legal and credible evidence sustainable under the law. Court below has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the appellant under Section 307 ofthe Indian Penal Code. IA.AS regard the question of sentence is concerned accused has assaulted his mother in law by dangerous weapon axe and caused injury over her neck. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts the sentence ofRigors Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default additional rigors imprisonment for 6 months is neither excessive nor unjust. 13. For the foregoing reason the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge A