F~ i i XI-HC-22 W^T^T f^'lJcb 37li?T ^yw^Tfin ^ -3^ •^IFiI^R. "S^WS. faCTl^y anif^r xra^ /^T^ ^ ^(HW$b^icb'''**'**''*''**'**'''''*'**'*'''*** ^T^ 200^ |c<^<^T'">'^"* siT^Ti'^Rrr^T'^f^f <=hl^fd41'l ^Hdf^ fec^ <Pn<^K "^ ^rf^m 3:n^?T CRIMINALAP: HIGH COURT OF CHlHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR E>EAL N0. 582 of 2005 Mr. S.K. Agrawal, Panep. Lawyer for the State. Dhirendra Mishra, J 20' 09-2007 >? JUDGMENT This criminal appeal conviction and order of senl^nce dated 8th April 2005 passed in S.T.No. 305/04 whereby l{ Kanker has convicted the ap] and sentenced him to underl s directed against the judgment of ^arned Additional Sessions Judge, pellant under Section 307 of the IPC ^o R.I. for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of pajyment of fine fo further undergo imprisonment for 15 days. tioi|i i Case of the prosecutioiji in brief is that on 31st August 2004 at about 11.00 p.m. when v| home, his son, the present] thrice on his neck, as a re^ |ctim Sattesingh was sleeping in his appellant, assaulted him with axe ^ult of which he sustained grievous I 1 t APPELLANT Murli S/o Satte Singh aged about 21 years, Occupation agriculture, R/o village Mandagaon, P/s Antagarh, Dist. Kanker, C.G. Versus NON-APPELLANT .• . ..; ... State of Chhattisgarh, Through P/s Antagarh Distt. Kanker.__ Present: Mr. A.K. Dixit, counse jr the appellant. XI-HC-22 ^TI^T^T T<'ii?b ^^ ^W^T'^fi^ ^' T5?-^F1^FT. ^ftW^. 't^ray 3irip?T ^S^K ^m^l w^iicb ^l^ 2(W •^^-"""" ^i^t ^<^il^R -^ <=hl^ld14l'1 'RIH^ff ^ 'feT^ '^R?R ^3??f^m3TT^T injuries. Sattesingh wentj informed him about the int Report ofEx.P/1 was lodgec^ 10.30 a.m.It is further ca< and his son, the present ap]| with agricultoaral operation. the appellanf not to engage month back. However, he n<) and threatened him that he admitted on the date ofincic] with axe. After the incident 3 examination to Community A.R. Verma examined him anl to precarious condition bf ttj rec.orded by Dr. A.R. Verir| charge sheet was filed in th{ Class, Jagdalpur from where learned Additional Sessions J During trial the prc| Thereafter, statement of the ^ 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which h< innocence and false implic^ to the house of Bisahuram and bident, whereupon First Information by Bisahuram on 1.9,2004 at about ^e of the prosecution that the father tellant, used to quarrel in connection The villagers had tried to convince |in quarrel with his father some one |>urished animosily against his father ^hall murder him, The appellant also }ent that he has assaulted his father attesingh was sent for medical Health Centre, Antagarh where Dr. j. gave his reportpfEx.P/2. Looking e victim, his dying declaration was a. After completing investigation ^ Court of Judicial Magistrate First |:he case was received on transfer by \ldge for trial. (secution examined 8 witnesses. (ccused was recorded under Section t denied the allegations and pleaded ^tion. The trial Court, however, 't :€ :1;'i 1 ^y :':^~ XI-HC-22 3TT^T^T f^FFS^T sb^ict) ^ff^T r "^a^ r^l^i<rtci ?pr. '^iNpi^, fc)i<yii<iy s 3ir^?T 1i^ra? ^IHW W^icb*''*'''''''***'**'*'''''''''*' >ff?^ 200 i^FR^T*'*"**"" 3:n^Ti^<nw^?r convicted and sentenced paragraph-1 ofthisjudgme^ Learned counsel for tD was. seized from Rambharo^ this witness who has been ^ it; was argued that the aj Section; 307 of IPC and sen therefore, looking to thei fact on the date of incident and may be^modified to the peric in jail since 1.9.2004 and as ofjail sentence. On the other hand, les impugned judgment.of the tr I have heard learned perused material available judginent. Cpnviction of the app victim Sattesingh, father Bisahuram, who has corrc Witnesses Bharatram (PW-5] that Sattesingh informed th< <=hl^fd4l'1 'RW^f ^ f^T^ <ptl^l< ^3Tf^R37T^T the appellanf as mentioned in Le appellant submits that in fact, axe ? as is evident from the statement of xamined as PW-4. In the altemative >pellant has been convicted under tenced to undergo R.I, for 10 years, that he is a young boy aged 21 years he is the first offender, his sentence d already undergone by him as he is such, already completed three years [rned counsel for the State supported [ial Court. counsel for the parties and have on record as also the impugned yiant is based on the statement of |)f the appellant, as also that of [borated the version of Sattesingh. and Sanker (PW-6) have also stated ^m that his son Murli has assaulted '^ 1 1t •:t: .€? XI-HC-22 37T^T^T f^IW 3T1^T 5h^icr»^iftn 1\ h^ 's^ ^II^IH^, ^Ti1<i<i<o< ^<ni<iy sirit^r XRRF ^rNW»^icb'''''''*''''''''*''a'''^'*a<''<*'<''^T^ 200 "^R^"""""' 3?TT^Ti'^TT^T'gf^T him and even the appellar that he had in fact assaultec Dr. A.R.Verma (PW-2) the incident on 1.9.2004 an< has proved the injury repoi found lacerated wound of below angel of mandible, inc neck thyroid cartilage and lateral to clavicle right side were grievous in nature an death in the ordinary cours referred the patient for ti centre. He has also stated t of Ex.P/7 in presence of Dr of this witness it is evident i victim were sufficient in th| death. Sattesingh (PW-3), fa.\ on tKefdate of incidenf wh^ taking meal, his son Murli| and fled thereafter. He saw i to the house of BisahuramJ the incident thaf the appel| assaulted him with axe on CM^i<n<flTi ^w^K ^ f^^il <P»i^i< ^^Tf^PT^TR^T t Murli confessed before Bharatram his father. has examined victim Sattesingh after 1 gave his injuiy report of E^x.P/2. He t and stafed that on examination he >ize 3 x 2x1 inches over the neck ised wound of 3 x 1 x 1 inches above incised wound of2x 1 x 1 inches He has stated that all the injuries d the same were sufficient to cause He has further stated that he had eatment to some higher treatment lat he had recorded dying declaration C.L. Sahu. Thus, from the evidence hat injures present over the person of ^ ordinary course of nature to cause her of the appellant, has stated that n he was sleeping in his house after assaulted him with axe on his neck tlim running away with axe. He went the complainant, and narrated about ant with an intention to murder him lis neck. Thereafter, the villagers ran ^ 11 XI-HC-22 3TT^T'^T ^-iicb 37li^T ^"RWRftU r* "3"^ ^<1<4H<LI. ^Tl1y41<i< fc«y1^1< 31Tif?T 'V^K @ ^Wf^'STP^^''^^^^^^^^^^^^^'^^^^^^ fN^T"""""" STT^Tl'^nW^f^T after Murli, caught him and has also stated that a m< reprimanded jMurli for not appellant had quarreled witlji was a rneefing in the village persuaded the appellant. In j stuck to his claim fhat in facl Murli. Statement of this witnj( of Bisahu, the complainantj therein name of present app|( Sattesingh. PW-5 Bhar^ statement of Sattesingh and met the accused he told him I account of some quarrel witt^ to the police station along weapon of offence axe. Ther^ the appellant used to freque|: this connection there was a nl( Thus, from the evidenc< the considered opinion that regarding involvement of the the Court below has not convicting the appellant imposing sentence upon him <=bMi<rl4Tl ^W<yffTt'feT^ <p3l^l< ^ ^rt^m '3:n^r [kept him throughout the night. He mth before the incident, he had doing, any work, upon which the him and in this connection there |where the Sanker of the village had ^ross-examination, this witness has axe blows were inflicted by his son ^ss is corroborated by the statement who lodged the report mentioning ^llant as the person who assaulted ^.tram has also corrpborated the ptated that in the morning when he Ithat he has assaulted his fath^r on him and thereafter, they bad went jwith accused, Sattesingh and the is evidence available on record that ^tly quarrel with his father and in |eeting in the village. available on record, this Court is of t|here is legal and clinching evidence appellant in crime in question and conjimitted any illegality or infirmity in Section 307 of the IPC and urlder ^ccordingly. 1 t XI-HC-22 371^T^T f^iWSni^T ^)^|ch ^Il ,:\ ^ kr ^^ -^qTqRTq.^'^itOT^. ^^l^ll< 3'iT^T '<73T^ ($) ^IH^l ^^1^^^^^^^^^^^"^^^^^^^^^"^^^ ^ 200 "^^T"""'"" 3?n^Ti^<n^R ^rf?^ Ghl^td^'-l 'HTR^Tf ^ ^S Tf^$R ^airi^maRT^r Now coming to the q|uestion whether the sentence of 10 years' RI imposed on the ajppellant was proper or whether the appellant was entitled for lei^ient cpnsideration fbr the purpose of imposing sentence? After gpmg through t\ that the appellant, son of vi| while he was^asleep with a 1( the bocfy I.e.Tneck. Cohdu^l fafher thrice while he was slt his intention to murder hl circumstances of the case, the appellant by learned tri^l same does not call for interfei le evidence on record, it is evident :tim Sattesingh, assaulted his father ithal weapon thrice over vital part of t of the appellant in assaulting his ^eping in his home, clearly indicates is father. Thus, in the facts and entence of 10 years' RI imposed on Court is just and proper and the rence. In the result/the apjpeal being devoid of substance is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge t 1^ I ? ^ [^