,tmp^O&';trZ.£.^^:;l^M^^ '/:''':.1'1.-.,,.'',..:",; ^&y^^M-^oo^^&.. ,| ,„.;;;: •.1''.,-';:., .. ;1' ^ ^Mi^.'itm^. ^ 9.. ;'^; I l;^-,.oooz-^^..-^^.^^ ^J.^. Xfl5,!3:-|^. :'.10g-..-:,:.lll}3;. •; •; ,.1'. , .;. •1., '/ ••,'i^%i| -,:1;-1;-';,.';;'1.'',,'/';:-^ ^•JJS^;^SLU ^ "7! ;:.:: :„: J ,;.::;. - ' .,; ~~ ' : 1 ::ll:: l :^lfaied£:.—.-;'.; ,•:; '7^^ ^,^,, ::'.;^. ••./• •":;'.- .:; 1. ;, ^. „. ^^-^-V:.',i .^, €<^. ;,0»^ ^^^.^^ /. -::^::-. . •^^.^^•' .^.1., .';,;::::p^—l :; ' ; l'::,1:: '^1?^%^: ^l l^':li-^^ll;^'-il^;'-/;i^ i4^^1s^.^JW^Jl^l,)fi^^J^^..' ^£',.. '. ^l;..\|'fimji:.,&|i:^i^;.,j^^ ^ '•;OQ^-feM'':y-^''.Iw.^. ,,;:|,;:i.;^:'.;••',-../..;-.',.::. ..^,.. .;,::. ;;."1.';^ . • •\. ^.f-'. ., :/,,. . , ,;:„:;,.:/•' .; ..•1"; ,' •.•.: .•.,,'.. ...-.,'.•. j»ite^|^l|j'&Mp^a,'tiyij2^ , ! - '; 1 ^w:... •I .'5-' i^ii^^ 1-^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESSARH AT BILASPUR Sjngle Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwoker Criminal ApDeai No. 34 of 2000 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Roimavtar Yadav Versus The State of chhattisgarh Shri Neeraj AAehta, counsel for the appeliant. Shri Praveen Das, Dy. <?ovt. Advocate for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDEK SECTCON 374 (2} OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDSEMENT (20.01.2011) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2000 passed by 2nd Additiond Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, SQrguja in Sessions Trial No. 337/1994 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to furiher undergo rigorous imprisonment for one yeor. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.03.1994 at about 6 pm when compiainant Aghcsn Ram (PW-12) wos returning home on his motor cycje ond opproached neosr the turning of road, accused/appellant was standing there with Q club in his hand and assaulted him on his head, GS G resuit of which he fell down. It is dieged that after abusing and chasing him, accused/ appeliont further gave him number of iathi blows on his arms, back oind legs causing eight injuries on him. Dehati Naiishi (Ex.P-7) was recorded on 8.3.1994 at about 10 pm and based on that, FJ.R. (Ex.P-5) was registered on 8.3.1994 itself at about 10.15 pm. After investigation, challan was filed on 11.6.1994 by the police under Sections 307 ^333 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(2)(vi) of the Schedujed Caste <& Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Howeyer, while framing the chorges, on 22.8.1995 the court below has framed the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the Gccused/appeiiant. . 3. So as to hold the accused/appeiiant guiity, prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appeilant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimind Procedure in which he denied the charges ieveled against him and pieaded his innocence and false implicQtion in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the triaj Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appeiJQnt for the offence QS mentioned above. Hence this appeai. 5. Counsei for the appe'Jant submits that considering the entire evidence ovaiiable on record, at best offence under Section 325 of the IPC is made out against the accused/appellant becouse there wos no intention on the part of the accused/appeilant to cause the death of the victim. He submits that there is no medical report on record to show that the injury sustoined by the victim was sufficjent to cause his death in the ordinory course of nature. He furt-he^ submits that the appellant has already remoined in jail for 3 ^ months and, therefore, after convert'ing the offence under Section 325 IPC from that of 307 IPC, he may be sentenced to the period aiready undergone by him. r i&^a^.. it 'S^E^ 3 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State Counsel that the offence under Section 307 IPC is clearly made out because the appellant had caused as many as 8 injuries to the victim including one injury on the parietol region of the right side of the head, which was found to be grievous in nature. 7. I have heard counsel for the porties oind perused the material avaiiableon record incjuding judgment impugned. 8. Aghon Ram (PW-12) has stated in his evidence that at the reievant time he was working as Beat Guard in the Forest Oepartment ondon 8.3.1994 when he was returning to his home on his motor cycle, on the way, the accused/oppellant was standing alo"9 with one more person hovin9 club in his hand. He has stated thori' when he was crossing the said road, accused/appellant gave a blow of /at/ifon his hand, as a result of which he feli down and thereafter he abused him and chased him by soying that he has falsely implicated him in a case and then the accused/appellant gave him several lathi blows ond upon intervention of one Pawan Kumar, he could rescue himself. Other witnesses to the incident namely Dwarika Prasad ©upta (PW-1), Motilal (PW-4), Pawan Kumar Yadav (PW-6), Jugeshwar Prasad Yadav (PW-7), Ramnath Yadav (PW-8) and Thakur Prasad (PW-8) have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. Krishna Singh (PW-5) is the head constabje who had lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of Dehati Naiishi (Ex.P-7). R.N. Yadav (PW-8) - Head Constabje is the author of the F.I.R. (Ex.P-5). Ramashankar AAishra (PW-9) is the Patwari who has prepared the spot map (Ex.P-8). Tapunath Singh (PW-11) is the seizure witness of Ex.P-9. B.P. Tiwari (PW-13) is the Forest Officer who had issued the dutyj i.^SSfiff^-, 1 %, 'a®^lli::"%- ,<?' •^.^- .^' • ;?,'»• -;?fc,;,^;y..;;' L cerl-ificate in favour of the victim vide Ex.P-9. Ameen (PW-14) is a motor mechdnic who had repaired the motor cycle of the victim. 9. Dr. B.AA. Koushal (PW-2) who had medicaiiy examined victim Aghan Ram (PW-12) and given his report Ex.P-1 dated 20.3.1994 found foliowing injuries. "1. Single lacerated wound in thesize of7cm xl cm x bone deep on the parietal and occipital region of the right side of the head. 2. Brownish colour contusion in the size of 2" x 2" over left shoulder towards back. 3. Contusion brownish red colour in the size of 2" x 3" over left arm in the middle. 4. Contusion with abrasion in the size of 2" x 2" over left ejbow. 5. Bruise read brownish colour in the sizeof 2" x 4" over back and medially to the right shoulder. 6. Contusion (bruise) red brownish in colour in the size of 5" x 2" with sweailing over back of the left thigh in the middle vert-ically. 7. Contusion 2" x 2" in size red brownish over middle of the left leg." He has further stated that the cumulative effect of all the injuries caused by the accused/appel lo.nt is grievous in nature and after about 2-1 months from the date of incident i.e. on 26.6.1994 vide Ex.P-2 the Doctor has given the query report that the nature of injury was dangerous to iife if he was not treated in time. 10. Admittedly, there is no medical report on record to show that the injuries sustained by the victim were sufficient to r 'y ••'^ 'Q^ ^.;"^. "i ^i "Y.. ^... ^ cause death in the ordinory course of nature and from the statement of the witnesses particularly the victim it does not appear that there was ony intention on the part of the accused/appellcnt to cause the deoth of the victim. 11. Considering the totality of the focts, in particujar that the intention or knowiedge of causing death which is the essentiaj ingredient for convicting theaccused/o.ppeliant under Section 307 IPC is altogether missing in this case, this Court- is of the opinion that the oppellant is liable to be convicted under Section 325 IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. 12. In view of the above, the appeaj is partly allowed. Conviction of the appeilant under Section 307 is ajtered to Section 325 of the Indion Penal Code. As the appellant is now middie aged person, has the family responsibility, the incident took place in the year 1994 i.e. 17 years back, that the appellant has aiready remained in Jai! for about 3 ^ months. his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, in lieu thereof the appejlant is directed to deposit Rs.11,000/- as compensoition under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Out of this total fine amount of Rs.11,000/-, Rs 10,000/- shall be payQbie to the victims namely Aghan Ram (PW-12). If the fine amount as directed is not deposited in the triai Court within six months from the receipt of copy of this order, the appellant shail undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months. Sd/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge