'S^St ^iWW^, yxfl'M'lta, lq0W^< NINdl **<|cb """""""•"••••"•"•••••••••"••••••• •--•^ an^?r VRK (^fyiqg) sii^r.w R-1J* WHSIRW *t<l<* 'reiTWdfcraii^r HIGH COURT OF CHHAtTISGARH AT EILASFVK CKIMINAL APPEAA NO.-934 OF 2005 AppeHant Accused (In Jailj Versus Resppndent Govind S4igh, Son of Shifi Mahendra Singh, Aged abo^it 22 years, Occupation Driver, Residcnt |of H.S.C.L. Colony, Khursipar, Bhilai, D4tri.et Durg (C.G.) State of Q Station, Hhilai Present Mr. Uttam. Pandey, counsd Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Paad La Ls^y ORALJ Dhirendra Mishra^ J This crimuial appeal is 41r conviction and order of senteiici in S.T.No. 157/2004 whereby Judge (FTC), Durg has convicted) of TPC and seatenccd tiim to uu4er Rs. 500 and ia default thereof 1)( Section 353 of IPC RI for 1 yeat, default fhereof RI for 3 monthsj years, pay a iine of Rs.5,000/- aad under Section 25(lb)(b) reaf^ ^)l'4^41l T^R?Tf '4 fel^i' <f^^1< '^sTRnaTS^i |hliattisgarh, Through : The Police ^ulai Bhatti, District Durg (C.G.) for fhe appeUant. pyer for the State/respondent. DGMEHT (29th Nov^nber 2007) (firected agam.st the judgnient of dated 20th January 2005 passed learned VII Additional Sessions fhe appeUant uiider SecUons 447 •go RI for 3 nionths, pay a fine of o undergo RI for 15 days, under pay a fine of Rs. l.OOO/- aad in under Section 333 of IPC RI for 5 nd ia default fhereof RI ftir 1 vear with Section 4 of the Arias Act to ^iiy'0^ ^t^ -FS/59—8/2007 —30,000. // 3lA% W ftlW wian^tWiN; S^ST ^nw^, w-^ww, ftwi'My •a^ 200 3n^?r ira% (iyf-i«<ii) ^WTCdfel 311^1 i- 4»l*lid4l-1"RPRff ^l^1^ <H*it$i< ^r <H((I*I <Ki^f undergo RI for 3 years, thereof to undergo RI for 6 been. directed to run concu^ p^.y a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default tnonfhs. AU tfae original sentences have 1'rentlv. 2. Case of the prosecu^ Singh, Head Constable, PW-2 Kamlesh Bahadur -i Constable and PW-5 B.C., the central store area of H 11.00 p.m. During this per| accused aitered in the B.S. was encircled by fhe publii iuncture, the appeUant wfal the Head Constable B.S. S bis lefit rib. However, the i of other three constables, Main Medical Post of the thereafiter taken to Sector brouaht to fhe Crune Bran same vfas sdzed in fhe Ci: also registered on fhe iafor: Ex.P/ 1. Thereafter, the Bhilai Bhatti where on Information Report of Ex.P B.S. Sahu was obtained fir jion, m. brief, is fliat PW-1 Bhupendra C^ntral Industrial Security Force (CISF^, Constable, PW-4 B,S. Sahu - Head ]pai, Constable were on ambush duty in tulai Steel Plant on 17.5.2004 at about iod at about 2.00 a.m. on 18.5.2004 fhe |F. area for coiuniittmg tfaeft ofiron. He ); servants present on duty and at fhat b was possessuig flleaal knife assaulted lahu bv his knife which struck him on ^ccused was ovisrpowered wifh fhe help Tttie iniured head constable was takea to B.S.P. for preliminary treataient and [9 Hospital, Bhiali. The accused was :h of CISF along wifh thc knife aud fhe ^iue Braach vide Ex.P/3. Report was tuation of Bhupendra Singh (PW- 1) vide 4ccused was taken to Police Statioa - the basis of report of Ex.P/ 1, Pirst V 1A was recorded. The X-ray report of {>in Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai, according ^jtissaei^, ^;^ 'VKsil-'- fsf- ^' '<* .,^;-.^rf!':' TE? '^I^IO'M, sixflyie, (s|<?iiyi^< ^Wv\\ sb*11* -•••••-—•••••-•-•••-—••—-•••—- ^ an^r ^ras (1pfy5tf) sn^i.qiT Ki-fi'b ^rarsn^i yh*ii^ 'FRITW 1HfeT 311^1 to which 9th rib bone of B.8. coinpleting investigation charge in. the Court of Judicial Masastri was received on transfer for trj Judge. 3. During trial the prosecul Thereafter. statement of fhe a< denied the evidence appearing and pleaded innocence aad fal^e trial Court after hearina coi conwcted and sentenced the a( paragraph 1 ofthisjudgm.ent. 4, Learned counsel for fhe a< kmfe was effected by CISF per^ and the same was seized bv cateeoricaUy opined fhat fhe further argued fhat the allegatil; scaledthewaU of 15-20 ft. injiuy, which also inakes fh{ ituprobable. The uidepetident ^ exauuned by th.e prosecution. froiu the present appellant iavolved in fhe said offence A tte kdifi cnnt<n<4l*i tTP^ff ^f fe'^t' '^IWR ^3ifitH3t!^T $ahu was found fractured. After ^heet was ffled against fhe accused (.te First Class, Durg and thc saine lal bv leamed Additional Sessions i.0n examiued 7 witnesses in aU. ;used was recorded in Tyhich he jgainst liim in fhe prosecution case unpUcation. However, leamed insel for fhe respective parties :cused/appeUant as luentioned in ipeUant submits fhat seizure of fhe onnel on bdng produced by theni ,e poU.ee, bawever, the doctor has Ife did not contaui bloodstain. He >n agaiast the appdlant is that he :, however, he did not sustain any prosecution case doubtful and itnesses though present were not He furfher conteuded fhat apart of ofher personS 'were also ineutioned iu the statement of nihiiber ^Sv —FS/59— 8/2007 —30.000. 3^^ -•iwi<ffi, w^w\e, ^tv'iwy, Nl*1dl **<|cb WI, 200 an^?T 'VRK (Tpf^g^si) <ni^i.TT lci-fi* wi3if??r sii^i'* TBIIW ^ifcf <Rit?t couiplainant Bhupeudra Sinah however, except the appellaal statem.euts lyere recorded nor b] been seized, which also falsifie( ftie iniured and in fhese circuidstances have extended benc&t of doubt tt PW-1) as also Dr. M.R.Soni (PW-7), no one was arrested nor their loodstain clothes ofB.R. Sahu has the alleged injuries sustained by ,, the Court beloiff ought to fhe appeUant. 5. On the other hand, lcarn< fhe impugned judgmeut submit^ handed while he vras atteniptitie plaat area and whfle he was b< iaiured B.8. Sahu wifh knife pubUc duties. The injuries a\^ dulv proved bv Dr. K.H. Rame) sustained bony iajury, T^hich (PW-7) vide Ex.P/8, From the iniured eyewitness B.S. Sahu ittvo] tn question is established. 6. I have heard learned have perused fhe material t mipugned judgmeut of fhe trial 7. PW-4 B.S. Sahu, the inj on 17.5.2004 he was on ambui chl^<i1l iTW^ff tf f^st' Tp>)-(SR ^? 3fR|II SIi^I td counsd for the State supporting that fhe appdlant was caught red to coiniuit theft of iron iu the |ing apprehended he assaulted the lo deter him from dischareuie his Istained bv fhe iaiured have been ^h (FW-3). B.S. Sahu (PW-4) atso ias beea proved by Dr. M.R. Soni tatcments of the eyewitaesses aad ulvolveinent ofthe appetlant in criine coitusd for the respecttve parties and /aUable on record including the ^ourt. ired e^'ewitness, has depased that 1 dutv ia the central area ofB.S.P. !;1*T f, <l«l-IK'ira —FS/59— 8/2007 —30.000. _^_^i,k_a.^^^.^-±. ^a Vf " '%. j 1 "wsey^ g ay< ^g3S '3^ '^WW^, W^WKo, Rtfl+fy *ll*iwi *MI* -••••—••-—•••—•-•—••—•••-—-- ^ 3n^?r ^ra^; (l^f^gstT) sn^T.^r ft-fi* OTTSII^T gniRT 's^iiw ^i)??r sii^r 5 Bhtlai Iwhen at about 2.00 a.iu. he spotl !he tried to apprehend hiui, assaultina him wifh the kmfe. H| caught hmi. He ideatifies the earUer also he had atteaipted Februarv and March and at tbatl case is pending against him ia. and thereafter he was takenl prelunuiary treataient was piovi\ referred to Sector-9 Hospital, fhree days for fhe treatuieat oj lodged iu fhe PoUce Station Bhi has not been atole to elicit ai( makes the euidence of fhis wit( His version is dulv corrobora1|i Bhupendra Suigh, Head Consta^ FW-2 Kanilesh Bahadur, Constall has examined B.S. Sahu on 18.) Ex.P/ 4, ni which he has found side of his chest of size 1.5 x examiuation and iu fhe X-ray re^. found fractured. The fracture ifc M.R. Soni (PW-7), whose rep< Constable, vras also present at| tlkeft tUe 'BlltCT'fl-l 1111'il' if fest <l»ltdl< ^ aiRit sii^r led a person in fhe bushes. When l|ie started freeing himself after ]owever, his other three colleagues i^ipeUaat preseut in the Court as in the plant iu fhe month of |tmie, he was holding sword and a Court. He reached control rooni to main medical post where lled to him and fhereafter, he was He remaiaed hospitalized for his left rib aud the report was ftti. by Bhupendra Singh. Defence IvfhinR from fhis witaess, which bess untrustworthv or unreUable. led froiu fhe statement of PW-1 >le, who lodged the com.plaint and t>le, CISF. Dr. K.H.Ramesh (PW-3) i.2004 aad has givea his report of tpenetrating stab iniury on fhe left A cm. He was referred for X-ray lort 9th rib of left side of chest was tiiurv has also becn provcd bv Dr. [)rt is Ex.P/8. PW-5. B.C, Rai, the tim.e of incident and he is a ifliysfl*! ^t3T -F8/59—8/2007 —30,000. !si^3SS,: ./ 'sssf -^ww^, v^v'w, ["i^wy, *<l*1ril **<!* """""""""""""""••""""•••••••••••••••••-^ sn^r iiaq; (4<<f'i»ii{ti) ai^i.w ftHi* WHSIRW '3RW witness of the fact fhat when l trying to arrest fhe appdlant kaife and thereafter, he was fhem. Thus, from perusal of s1 ofher fhree evewitaesses who ai place of incident and also from of the iniured. involvement offh estabUshed. i|e and ofher CISF persound were [e had assault«l B.S. Sahu wifh cjverpowered and apwrehended bv ^tenient of injured B.S. Sahu aiid Ipreheaded the appeUaat from fhe (he mjury reports of Ex.P/ 4 & P/8 |e aooeUant in crime in auestion is leatned 8, So far as argiunetit of absence of mjury over person doubt about the veracitv of fh|s absence of iniurv over person fhe cUnchiiis evidence adduced charge against ftie appdlant n| clothes of the iniured is fatal t| version of eveffidtnesses of the i(] apueUant from. fhe place ofincitl the around that fhev are wituesses have not been examliiied corroborated froni fhe iiiedical eMdeiice. 9. At fhis staee, learned coili the anndlant has been comnct4< fiwe vears' RI under Section 333 ^t^<n*fll 'qTO^Tf tf f^e^ Tf^R^R ^i'aiRn 3n^i counsel for the apTieUant that |of the accused/appeUaat creates e prosecution case, is concerned, |f fhe accused would not inupeach bv the prosecution to estabUsh ftie >r fhe non-seizure of bloodstained fhe case of the prosecution. The Lcideat, vrho had apprehended fhe |ent, cannot be discarded stmply on ofl&cial witnesses and independent mlined as thdr statenients are dulv Lnsel for the appdlaat argued fhat d wifh a maxim.um iaU seiitence of of fhe IPC, however, lookuig to fhe ?NN' -FS/59—8/2007 —30,000. XI-HC—78 r^": 311^1 ^lft^W W Sil^I (fiMI* ^ 3:ssr '<ii*ii<?><i, (STfly'is, [Si<'»i^y Wl^ 200 an^OT Ti°ra; ('pf^3^) aee of fhe aoneBant fhal tucident. the Court belowi senteuce. It is furftier arg4 Mav 2004 and as such h4 nionths of iail seutaice senteaced for fhe period he was 22 vears old at fhe tLme of ought to have awarded him lesser jail •gi|ted fhat the appetlaut is injail siace 19th has ah-eady cumpleted fhrce years six alnd in fhese circuinstances, he m.av be alj'eady undergone by liitn. 10. Havine regard to €he] considering the statem.en.il has stated fhat fhe app^ offences in fhe past and case is pendiag agauist consida-ed opinion fhat the learned trial Court is| interference. tde 11, In. fhe result, fhe a^: to be dismissed aud is acci ct»T<if<n<i1'1TTPraf 'Ef,1^I3t •(fa^R ^aifimsii^r Ifacts an.d circuinstances ofthe case and of iajured eyewitaess B.S. Sahu, who .pp^llant was also immlved ia fh.e simflar ak fhat tiin.e he was holdiug sifford and a ThJTn m the Court, ttus Court is of the sentence imposed on the appellant by just and proper aad does not call for peal beuig devoid of substance is Uable ^rdingly, disnussed. _^——" 'judge