HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH “mini-l Appeal No.1o4amool Amlu Ram Vs. State 0f Chhath'sgarh ‘ Criminal A 110.1044 2001 Mangaru Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh “m5“ Appeal No.1o45’z001 Mangal Sai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh JUDGMENT Post for 16.07.2007 Sdl- Suni] Kumar Sinha Judge w xw HIGH COURT OF CHEATTISGARH, BEASPUR Criminal Aw No. 1043 of 2001 ‘ Griminaléppeal No. 1044 of 2001 i APPELLANT Mangaru Ram, $Io Amlu, aged about 25 years, occupation'Ag’n'culture, resident of village Askam, Madvasarai, Police Stah‘on.'Kamleshwa1—pur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Versus State of Chhatu'3garh, Thmugh Poiice Sta1ion« Kamleshwaxpur, DisttSamggljaiCE.) ' Criminal Aw No. 1045 of 2001 Mangal Sai, s10 Bakhon', aged about so years, occupation Agiculturc, resident of village Askara, Madvasarai, Police Station. Kamleshwarpur, Distt, Salguja (ca) VelSuI Smte of Chhall‘ garh, APPELLANT Through Police Station- Kamleshwarpur, Distt. Salguja (C.G.) Appearanoe: None for the appellants. Shli N..K. Mehta, Panel Lawyer, for the State. APPELLANT Amlu Ram, s/o Mangari Ram, 45 years, occupation Agriculture, resident of village Askam, Madvasarai, Police Stamn. Kamlcshwarpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, w ‘ Through Policc Station. Kamleshwaxpur, ‘ ‘ Distt.Sarguja (C.G.) 2 Climinal No; 1043/2901 1044/2001 & 1045/200 mm (1697:2007) Sunil Kumar sinks, J, (1) These are the 3 jail appeals arising out of a common judgment dated 15.10.2001 passed by the 1“ AddL Sessions Judge, Ambibapur, in S.T.No. 196/ l999, whexeby the appellanta wem convicted u/s 325/34‘I,P.C., and santenced to undergo RJ. for 3-3 years and to pay a he of Rs.500-500/-, in default of ‘ @ayment of he, to mrther undergo RJ. for 6-6 months. i (2] In these cases, the aypc'llants have already mdexgmc their sentenees, themkxe, for hearing, names were issued to them, on whif‘h even after ervice, no one caused appearance on behalf of appellants Amlmam & Mangaru Rem whereas a report r has been received that appellant Mangal Sai has died. Since no steps have been taken for substitution of Mangal Sai, his appeal (Cr.A.No.1045/2001) stands abated and the judgnent is being passed on remaining two appeals 01rd on behalf of Appellants Amlu Ram and Mangaru Ram. (3) The appellants were charged u/s 307 read with section 34 of l.P.C. The hrm’f mts are that injured Mungla Ram (P.W.1), was having inimiml relations with the appellants on some land dispute. On 27.3. 1999, at about 8 p.m., when he was manning back to his house, the appellants armed withadeadly weapons like Iaihi and arrow stopped him on the way and started assaulting him. On this, he fell down on the gmund and the Tangia, which he was holding, slipped hum his hands, whieh was picked up by appellant Mangaru, who gave a Tangia blow on his head. On hue and cry, his wik Bifaiya Bai (P.W.8) and Ram Kuwari (P.W.10) came over there and took him to their house and theleahe’r, a report EX.P.1 was lodged. The victim was sent for medical examinah'on and was examined by Dr. G.Prasad (P.W.3) {who noticed the folbwing injuries and prepared his xeport Ex.P.4. m4 @ 3 Criminal Amals No. 1043/2001, 1044/2001 & 1045/2001 1. Anincisedwoundinsizeoflx‘lax1écmon the anterior sum of w leg in middle 1/3“ pmt, clotted blood pxesent. 2. A lacerated wound in size of V2 x V2 x V2 cm on the anterior smface of left leg on the upper 1/ 3rd part, dxy, obliquely placed. 3. Swelling of right elbow joint and upper half part of right foxe arm. Two abrasionS - (31.5 x 12 cm &(b)3x4cm.bothin'cgularinshapeand ‘ ohliquely placed, clotted blood pxesent. 4. One abrasion on lateral surface of right upper gmonmiddle 1/3“part,insimof2x3cm, dry, clotted blood pmsent. ‘ 5. One lacerated wound on the left parietal bone in size of6 x V2 x $0 Cms., obliquely placed with oozing (bleeding) plescnt. 6. One lacerated wound on the occipital bone in size of 5 x V4 x V4 Cms., obliquely placed with oozing present. g 7. There was complaint of pain on the back but no external injuries wele seen. According to him, injuries no.1 to 4 wete simple in nature and for injury no.5 & 6, he advised tn X-Ray Examination. On further examination, the victim was sent to Dr.M.K.Jain (P.W.2) who found that them was no bony injnxy so far as slmll was concerned. However, the victim has sustained nactme of his right ulna bone. He gave his report Ex.P.2. The X-Ray plates (Ex.P.3) were also collected. After usual investigation the charge sheet was tiled . (4) On trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants for the odence punishable u/s 307/34 I.P.C., however, on the basis of evidence of the victim as well as eye witnessesiand the two Doctors, they weie convicted u/s 325/34 u A 4 @ ' No. 1043/2001 1044/2001 & 10451200 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment and to pay he as afommenh'oned. (5) Victim Mungla Ram (P.W.1) has stated that when he was : mtuming to his house on the &teful day, he was stopped on the way by the appellants who assaulted him with the help of lazhi, :armwandTangia. Hehasalsostatedthedetailsastohowthc assault took place, and Who'gave which injury. His evidence is 1 supported by the evidence of his wife Bifaiya Bai (P.W.8) and his aafughter Ram Kuwaxi (P.W. 10). The above evidence of the victim is further supported by the evidence of Dr.G. Prasad r (P.W.3) & D§.M.K. Jain (P.W.2), who have medically examined him on’the requisition of the police. (6) The Sessions Court has held the evidence of the victim to be trustworthy and also to be supported by the evidence of two eye wimesses and the Doctors. Even aher going through their evidence, it does not appear that either a concocted story was plepaled or them is a case of false implication. Their evidence is natural, cogent, leiiable and mstwonhy. 0n the basis of the evidence of the Doctors, the trial Coutt took this view that in fact, this was not a matter of attemph'ng the life of the victim and taldng such View, it recorded the finding of acquittal n/s 307/34 I.P.C., and has convicted the appellants u/ss 325/34 I.P.C. (7) In the matter of Prasad -Vsv state a Mar AIR 1955 $.C. 843, the Apex Court held that in order to bring the ad‘ence home to accused, the pmsecution must establish that his intention-was one of the thiee kinds mentioned in section 300 l.P.C. The state of mind of the accused has to he deduced hum surrounding circumstances and motive would be a televant circumstance and whele the evidence is not sumcient to establish with certainty, existence of requisite intention of knowledge of accused, the accused can be convicted only u/s 324 and not u/s 307 IPC. Again in the matter of Earl mshmt Q9 5 Criminal M No. 1043/2001, 1044/2001 & 1045/2001 &stateoH arm-Vs-Sukhbir handothemAm 1988 8.0. 2127, thg Apex Court further held that u/ s 307 IPC, what the court has to see is, Whether the act irrespective of its lesult, was done. with the intention or lmowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or lmowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingedient being established, there can be no oEence of “attempt tomulder’.” U/s 307 the e aintention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered kom all cimumstances, and not merely mm the consequences that ensue. The nature cf the weapon £ used, manner 1n . whlch . 1t . m . used, mauve . for the cnme, . severity of tile blow, the pan of the body where the injmy is inmcted are some of the hetors that ‘may be taken into consideration to detefmine the intention. (8) After going through the entire evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the State, I am of the opinn‘n that the conviction and sentence awanied by the Sessions Court does not warrant interference by this Court. f’l‘he appeals have no amerits and the same are liable to be dismissed. (9) In the msult, Cr.A.No.1o43/2oo1 a Cr.A.No.1o44/2001 am dismissed on merits whereas Cr.A.No.1045/01 is dismissed as abated. Sdl— s '* /’ Sunil Kumar Sinha Y Judge Ran e ‘ 1 3 ;