WW @ wa mm Wmm HIGH €QEJRT QF GHHATTISGRRH. AT &!LASPUR ’PEAL'NQ.- $0$g2005 §hiashkar Mama, SIC) Nitya Nanci ndeep @ Sanjeev Mahto, SfoNitya nd Mahto, aged 26 yrs. Both Rio Saket Colony. Jagdalpur, Diett. mmiwm amimm i———n>—mw—.m um. iiiRmMNQL A RE$PQNDE§5T QRAL (29‘ .QPPELLANTS 1, Mahto, aged 32 yra 2. Sa Na 3asta ' CG. Vs State Bodhgh Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandey, Adwcate Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt. JUDGMENT ‘ May, 2m?) Dhirendra Mishra, J; This appea! is directed aga paswd by !earned 15‘ Rdditional S:es~5ions Jsdge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in S.T. No.146/2004 whereby learned appellant Na.1—Bhashkar guiity far the IPC and appetlant Na.2—$an 0f Chhattisgarh thmugh RS. at, Distt. Bastar C.GA WW (13W) forthe appellants, Mirocate for the respondent-State. inst the judgment dated 13th January, 2035 Additional $eseions Judge aher holding oommiesion of offence under Section 30? of :leep @ Sanjee‘v guilty for commiesion of affence under Section 30?]34 of the tPO, $entenced each 0f the appeilant to underga RJ. for five year$ and to of tine to further undergo R.l4 fer 0 Case of the prosecution, in brief? i3 that injured Herpal $ingh was empteyed as Water Supplier in t e Municipality. On 1612004 at about 6‘00 p,m., he went t0 purchaee the eg s in Tamae shep where Sentiein 3:, BhaSkar pay a fine of RsQOO/n in default of payment e manth. WW,W,W mm (W) WWW ’— L» WW§§€IW %aimam «7., learned Additicnal Sessiom Jud g wpre alsn pmsgnt Randegp abucgd Harpal wifh the filmy languwaught hold of his canar and slapped h ance, upon which Harpa! mo gamed Sandeap. Aecwed Bha5kar em; ’ged by tha act of Harpal came there threatening that he shall murder h and tank nut a knife and stabbed an hl$ stomach as a result of which hié in stines came nut. lnjured Harpal was taken ta hi5 name by the persans of localty whereupon his wife Parwati (PW-2) tank hirn to the Paliee Station on ricks aw and thereafter he wa$ admitted in the hdspital. Parwati (PW-2) lodged t renort of EXP-3 on which otfenoe under $ection 307 of the IPC was ragiste ed against accwed Bhadkar. During investigation the ijured was Sent to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur where Dr. $anjay Bas k (PW—1) examined the injury and gave medical examination report of Ex. 1. Prior to lodging of FIR” Dehati Nalishi of ExlP~3 was regietered on the c mplaint of Parwati, wife of injured. lm‘ured . Harpal was admitted in the hospit l as indoor patient and his bed—head tioket is EXP-6, lh pursuance of the, atement (EXP-4) of appellant hhaokar, weapon of offence, Knife woe tak n into posseeeion from the appellant vide EXP—5. Blood stained underwear ohirt of injured were taken into poesession injured were sent to the doctor f r hie opinion regarding presence of blood stained over the same. After oompleting investigati n, charge sheet wee filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdatpir who in turn committed the same to the oouft of Seeoions Judge, Jagdaipu and the same was received on transfer by , Jagdalpur for trial. The prosecution in order to establish the charges agar st the appellants examined six witnesses. Thereafter, statements of appella were recorded under Section 31i3gof Cr. GRPRJ FS/246 r 2/2007 50,U00. ‘vide EXP-7. Spot map is EXP—8. Seized weapon of offence and clothing of in i h , t n .s and fakse implicatian. They have alsn examined twa defence witnesSes in their defence. Learned Mditionai Sessiars Judge after hearing the argument5 of learhesd counsel for th’a respecti‘re partieg, cenvicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.2 '{Saneeep has been cenvicted in thi; case with the aid of Section 34 ef the IPC, hem/ever, there is n0 evidence ilable en record te shew that the said effence wae cemmitted by bath t appellants after premeditation as a result e‘f ere-planning. ‘From the eviden e available en reeerd it weuld be evident ‘ that incident occurred in a spur of moment on a trivial issue as the appellants were anneyed with the supply ef municipal water. Frem the case of V prosecution itself it is evident th t initially fist blow was given. by appellant , Sandeep which was retaliated by injured Harpal and in this process Bhaskar all 0f sudden teak eut a knife an assaulted Harpal on his etemach with it. Thus, the Court below was not jLLtitied in oomrieting appellant No.2-Sandeep with the aid ef $eotion 34 of IPC. He further submits that appellant Bhaskar hae already undergone the sent nce and has; been released en 9.3.2007, hewever, appellant Sandeep has et been released because he was on bail during triali On the other hand: lear. ed Government Advecate for the State supports the impugned judgment owever, he does not dispute that appellant Bhaskar has been released fr jail aaer completing hie sentence and a written communicatien to this e ect has also been submitted by the State counsel, whichis taken on rec GRPRJ FS/246 2/2007 50,U00. a a h , o o‘ Wm (W) WWW mmm ~_ E,. WWW%'WW‘ %3if%1tm%$1 . cence WW,WW,W Wm E71; 200 WW (W) WWW wmm man afar m (é % WWm2;?W lfar the respective partie$ and perused the I have heard learned couns evidence available en recerd as a! 0 the impugned judgment. As far as the injury sust, ined hy injured Herpal ie cencerned, Dr. Sanjay Basak (PW—1), who has e amined injured Harpal and given his report EXP-1, hae Stated that one stab ed injury (if size 4"x3” stomach deep wae present, omentum & intestines ha come out and bleed was dozing frem the place of injury. 3 feet leng intee ne was came eut'. The cemplainant was 'cenecieus, pulee rate was i’O per inute, bleed pressure was 1001’60 and rate ‘ef respiration was 20 per minute, He had advieed admissien and immediate surgery by surgical speeialist d had else directed bleed tranefusion. Accordingly; injured was admitt daye. Thus, frem perusal ef the r pert pf ExP-i and statement 0f Dr. Sanjay Baeak (PW—1), the injury suetaine by Harpal is established As far as the invelvement f the appellants in the crime in questien is coneerned, Parwati Bai (PW—2); o has lodged Dehati Nalisht (Ex.P—3), has stated that at the time of incident she was at her residence, at that time twe ' bays namely Kailash & Rinku hro ght her husband her husband teld her that he had quarrel with Bhaskar and e has stabbed him. Thereafter, she went to the Police Statien along with her sloand and had lodged Dehati Nalishi EXP- 3. Her husband was admitted in he Maharani Hospital. Pint-3 Harpal 8ingh has also stated that he had gone to the egg shop situate in front of his house to pu ‘chase the eggs. Bhaskar (s. $andeep were Consuming liquor at that place. h e was engaged in water supplying work for Municipality. Both the brothers said that he is not supplying the water and saying so Sandeep caught h 1d Bhaskar assaulted him with the knife on in the hospital and remained there for 15 e guaea 2/2007 50,000. i @ WW Hi 200 Thereafter, the accused persam fled fram thtare. Kailash & Rinku were naming at that time and both of them teat“ him to his; hause. They tald his wife that Bhaskar had aswulted with the krife and sha shauld take him te the Potice Station, whereupan his wife taoki was admitted in the hnspitai, whet the cross-examination this witne: persend in the shop by~chance am returning, he wag invnived in verb' ti dual with the accused persona regarding euppiy of water. 0n being asked, e replied that an that day he wee en leave and therefcre, he was net in a pa ition to Supply water on that day. He has further stated that is correct to s y thatvwhen he wee returning tewards hi5 home, he ail at sudden feit pain a d when he leak dawnward he found that iim to the peiice station and thereafter, he e he underwent treatment for 15 days. in ts has stated that he met the accused t when after purchasing the articles he wee , blood was oozing and thereafter 1e heard the commotion that Bhaskar has assaulted him. Thus, from the evidence ot above two witnesses. the involvement of appellant Bhaskar in the crime in question is established beyond reasonable » doubt, as both theae witnesses have categorically stated that Bhaekar had assaulted Harpal with the knife. So far as the statement of‘defence witness Kaiiash (DW—1) is concerned, he has stated that n3 quarrel took place between Harpal and 3haskar 84 Sandeep before him He has further stated that crowd had gathered there, Harpal was lying on the ground and thereaher he does not know what happened. Thus, fro his evidence it is clear that he not the witness of incident. $imilar is the statement of DW—Z Ramashray, who is owner of grocergtshop situate 'nea the place of incident and has stated that he J GRPRJ FS/246 2/2007 50,000. 311%“ W (W) maxim WWW mmewm 7;,— étatmanéw down. XI—HC—78 WW,W,W W W .Q ; W 200 mm (W) am§§ ¥.‘é'— .. dees nat recognize Harpal. Hnwever, Harpa! came ta his Shag) an the ciate af incident far purchasing ail and there was n0 quarrel betwaen Harpal and 5andeap & Bha$kar before his shap. Thus, it is mar that he is also net the witnegs of incident. appeliaht Sandeep @ {Sanjeev in the erime in queation i5 ceneemed, learn d trial ceurt on the haeis of etatement ef injured Harpal that Sandeep caug t him and Bhaskar dealt a knife blew on hie stomach hee canvictect $andeeg under $ecti0n 38734 of the tPC, however, frem the evidence available on rechrd and frem the statement of injured Harpai himeeif it i3 evident that t e incident eccurred in the epur (if mement without premeditatian and the inc dent initially started when Sendeep elapped Harpel fer not eupplying water a in retaliatien Harpal else slapped Sandeep and seeing this Bhasker ali ef s en reached there and dealt a knife blew 0n his stemach. From the evidenee vailéhle en recnrd it is evident that Harpai himself has admitted in the era heme, therefere, in the censidered Opinion 0f this Ceurt the trial ceurt was ne justified in holding appellant Sandeep guilty ef effence under Sectien 307/34 e the iF‘C. ‘ln the result, the appeal preferred by appellant Bhaskar being deveid. 0f substance is hereby dismissed and his judgment of convietien is maintained However; the appeal preferred by appellant Sandeep alias Sanjeev is atlewed and his convictien under $ection 307134 ef the IPC and sentence tmpesed thereon, are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the aheve charge. He he set at liberty forthwith; if not required in any ether case. asham— Wm_.‘_.~mmmm, examinatien that injury was caused t0 him while he was returning towards h biV‘ Judge Dhttendr Misma i $0 far as the immivement n u s - i