Et L- APPEU.WT ZN JAIL 'l'^l^.I^C-i.—— ; •'Ss^r'^-t JSS TBE HIQH COURT OF JODICATOBE AT BIIASPOR (CG) Cr.A^peal No»^,^ff Of 2005 ( Memoranduntof CrimJ.nal Appeal XJ/s 374 (2) o£ Cr.P.C. ) » Bajrangf @ Ma^&sh S/o Bisnath Dhobi aged a^s»ut l9<yeacs » oecapation ' sentting tjceslde^at of Vinffliyayasal. Ward Dhaa$arl, P.S« Dhamtacl (CG). A Vetsus BESPONDENT to O; R. (J) -MEMOJgaNDM^F CRIMINAL APPEAE UITCCB SECTIOH^ 374 (2) J)F C^PC t Tl^ State o£ Glihattlsgarb,tbrough tl*^ District Magistrate Raipur (CG). XI-HC-78 Sd^T^T^IHi cTSTT3TT^TsbHi<fi| 3%r^fFCfvw, STnu'id, !qcii«y (f-^- ^^ tTTHdt ai*iiw ^ 200 ^ 3n^?r (Rra? (yil^q^it) s^TWHfN'sii^r qirafepfrr wwft'^'te^t ^reere ^srf^iTsn^T 09/10/2096 - Shri Avadh Tripattu, sjounsel forthe appellant. Shri MPS Bhatia, PL for State. Heard. | Leamed counsei fo^ ^he appellant, at the vety outset submitted that he would not assail the pinding recorded by the leamed tria! Judge fhat the iajuries sustained |)y Prakash PW-I were inflicted by the appsllant by means ofa knif^ and would press this M.Cr.C on'y on fhe groundthat considering fhe ijiedical evidence of Dr. J.S. Khalsa PW-15, the ofi'ence committed by tt^ 324 ofIPC and in view ofth e appellant did not travel beyond Section fact that the appellant was aged 19 years on the date ofoccurrence an4 has ah'eady undergone incarceration for a period over 2 years and 7 m4nths, ths sentence awarded by the leamed trial Judge should be suit^bly modified to imprisonment already undergone by the appellant, | On the other hand, Sh^i MPS Bhatia, ieamed Panel Lawyer for State argued ifl support ofthe|impugnedjudgment wliile contsndiag that the maimer in v,hich the inju^ies were repeatedly caused on vital parts, the nature ofthe mmry sustaii^ed by Prakash.and the shaip weapon with v/hich the imuries were caus^d prove the giiilt of the appellant under Seetion 307 of IPC bevond the shadow of doubt and therefore the sentence awarded by the letimed trial Judge did not call for anv interference. Having considered the| record. It has emerged ia cro] rival subsmssions, I have perused the ss-examinatioa of Prakash PW-1 that the XI-HG-78 sn^TwfeN; tiw sn^r»H *<i*iMi awrai T^^mM^, w^wie, [Slciwy ^...fc..A.A..$^^ 3n^?r iraw ('yijisf^) CTaraTafersn^r -:—^-« appellant had assaulted him by to which he sustained an injui appellant inflicted a second blo hands, the third assault bv the also emerged in cross-examina mjury had been lung deep deatn-j The follQwing injuries we: A' 1 was present, tnai x lcm with difficuity in V :Ineiged woi forehead jug with bleediri Since the repeated assaul knife on Prakash PV/-1 is not m| that lookhig to the marjier m wh( with which the injuries were cai|; were infiicted and the nature of] the leamed triai Judge has rightj] 307ofIPC. So far asthe senteit soncemed, I am ofthe consideili any iaterference. Isi the result, this crimin4! merit is dismissed. TOife^ iira?fl:fffe^t dSi^R: ^srf^iran^T r^ieans of a sharp kmfe on the scalp due i/ over the eve lid and fhereafter fhe ji' by the kcife on his chest. Using his (ppellant was prevented by him. It has ton of Di-. Khalsa PW-15 that if the lould have ensued as a result thereof. sustaiaed bv Prakash PW-1:- (g injun' on left side ofthe !ower chest, |more flian skhi deep, bleeding was ^gular shaped with gaps ofVz cm x 2cm shaip edges. The injiired was haviiig [breathmg. tad on the right temporal region on lateral to the eyebrow 3cms skin deep [g present. by the appellant by means ofa shaip ^ ^r'!^ '*'..' '^\ .y/>L dispute, I am ofthe considered opinion ;h the injuries were caused, the weapon ied, fhe vital parts on which the injuries he injuries sustained by Prakash PW-1, convicted the appeilant under Section ;e awarded bv the leamed trialJudge is ;d opinion that it also does not cal! for appeal No. 668/2005 being devoid o^ .•'. Sd-/' 1 Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 1111