SB IN THE HXGH COURT OF JUDIC&TURB AT JABALPUR CRIMINA& &PPEAL UBXMR .SK?TIOH >; 374 Cr. . P.C, /% g<r fage S/o .Slrfl* Klsltan years, resident o£ i azeu"» ' Raipur • S ft, VE.8SUS ^ML '•WW.M. Tbrough s«0« .City Kotwali .s//2,'r- E^SED..B?:&EARNED-CWJRT OF VI aPPER SESSIOfiI JUDGE BAZPTJR, ^ 5T-- ^T»L(t,i>- •- / ';«fc«<',^'X^ ^SSfS^' ^&y HXGH COURT OF CMHATTISeARHAT BILASPUR (H<m. Mr, Justice Prttinker Diwalcer) Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 1997 APPELLANT Naresh VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Practesh Smt. Indlra Tripathi, counsel for the accusal/appeltant. Smt. Smlta Ghaf, P.L. for the respondent/State. CRIMINALAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 f2) OFTHE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. jlUDGMENT (14.06.2011) M '/ This appeat is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.1997 passed by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur !n Sessions Trial No. 2^ of 95 convjctlng the accused/appellant for the offence underSection 307 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rlgorous imprisonment for five years. 2. Facts of the case (n brief are that on 09.03.1995 ttw accused/appeliant gave a knife blow to Dharmendra Singh Sisodla (PW-l) causing injuries on his right eye and also bit his left h?nd. Dehat! Nalishi (Ex.P-l) was recorded on 09.03.iWs itself and after comptetlon of investigation CAa//an was filed on 26.06.1995 against the appellant Naresh and the acquitted accused Rupesh under Section 307 of IPC and 25 & 27 of Arms .Act. However the Court below framed charge against them under Sectlon 307 of IPC, 3., S6 as to hold the accusaj persons guilty, presecution has examined 09 witnesses in support of Its case. 1 -2-- Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal R-ocedure tn which they denied thecharge levetled against them and pleaded thelr innocence and false imptlcation in the case, •» 4. After hearing the parties the trtal Court has acquitted the co-accused Rupesh of th^ offence under Sectlon 307 of IPC but convicted and sentenced the present appeltant for the said Act. 5. Heard counsel for the parttes and peruse^ the material avaitable on record including the judgment impugnect. 6. Contention of Smt. Tripathl, learned counsel for the appellant is that even if the entire prosecutlon case is taken as it Is the offence under Section 307 of IPC isnot madeout against the appellant because the injurles sustainedby the victim Dharmendra Singh Sisodia(PW-l) were simple In nature and in thisview of the matter at best, the appellant can be convicted under Sectton 324 of IPC. She subrrtts that the appetlant has already remained !n jail for about one year and six months and therafore the said sentence is good enough under Section 324 of IPC. 7. On the other hand supporting the irrpugned judgment it has been argued by Smt. Ghai, leaned counsel ft>r the State that tl?/e conviction of the accused/appellant Is just and proper and there is no infirmity tn the same. Mowever, she does not dispute the fact that as per the Dr. Sukhdeo (PW-7), injuriessustained by the victim were simple in nature. 8. The victlrn Dharmendra Singh Sisodia (PW-l) in hls court statement hascategorlcally deposed that on the date of Incident when he was sttting in his offlce, the appellant reached there and assaulted him by means of knife as a result -3- of which he sustained injuries on his head and also bit his teft hand. In cross-examination thls witness stood very firm and has not deposed any thing which may help the appellant The statement of the victim has been dully supported by the witnesses namety Bidhan Chandra Shriva^;ava(PW-2) and Y, K. Sahu (PW-3). Thus, from the evidenca it is apparent that the victim was assaulted by tfcie appellant. 9. Now the only question which is to be decfded by this Court is whether the convictlon of the appetlant under Section 307 of IPC is proper or not. 10. As per the statement of Dr, Sukhdeo (PW-7) who medically examined the vlctim vide Ex. P-5 has found followlng two injuries on hls body: i) 1 cm X 0.3 cm skin deep (ncised wound caused by sharp object. ii) 3 cm X 3 cm contusion on left hgnd. According to the doctor, both the injurtes sustalned by the victim were simpte in nature. In his query report Bx.. P-3A he has categorically stated that on account of the sald iniuries, death of the vlctim was not possible. it, Conslderlng the medical report of the vlctlm and the statem?int of Dr. Sukhdeo (PW-7) itcan be safely held that the'appellant cannot be convicted under Section 307 of IPC and he is liable to be convicted under Sectlon 324 of IPC. 12. In view of above, the appellant is hereby acquitted of the charge under section 307 of IPC but he is eonvtcted under Section 324 of IPC. It is reported that the appetlant has atready remained tn jail for more than one ycar and stx -^- months. Thus, his sentence is reduced to the penodl already under gone by him. 13. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge -. /