H1GH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR GriminatADDeal N0.848/2006 APPELLANT (AcGused in jail) RESPONDENT Dakeshwar, S/o. Ramtu Chandrakar, Aged abQUt 29 years, R/oKishungarh, 'Thana Pandariya, District Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. ' Versus^ . •': . : • ""\ ', State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Pandariya, District - Kabirdham (Kgiwai-dha) C.G. . . .^ :' . ;~ •- 1'1'..:.:.1./ Memo ofaRpeaLunderSeetLon374t2)oftheCocle^f Criminal Procedure 1973 'Present :•;,: .., !.. :;!. : , • : .. , .1, •;: }';:!,. Shri J.D, Bajpayee and Shii Abhay Tiwari, Advocates for the , appellant. ' . , , : Shri SanjeevAgrawal,PanellawyerfprtheState. J Singl&Bench: f;i . ii. Hon'ble^Mr.J.P^Sharma, J. ORAL J U DG IVIENT e^ ^ (Passedon 17thofAugust, 200g) . This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction & OFderofsentencedated 21.09.2006 passed by theAdditional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Cburt), Kabeerdham (Kawardha) in Sessions Trial No,34/06, wherebythe learnedAdditionalSessionsJudgeafterholding the appellant guilty for eommission of offence punishable under Section 307;of I.P.C.sentenced him to undergo R.l. for7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.l. for 2 months, under Section 326 of I.P.C. sentenced him to ynclergo R.l. for 3 years and to pay a fine pf Rs.5QO/-, in default 6f payment of fine, to furtherundergo R.l.. for 2 mohths, under SectiQn 324 of I.P.C. sentenced him to undergo R.l. for 1 year, under Seetion 324 of I.P.C. sentenced him toundergo R.U'for 1 year and under Secfion 450 of I.P.C. sentenced him to undergo R.l. for2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.SQO/-, in default of paymentof fine, to further undergo Rl. f6r2months'fbr eachcount ; 2. Ttijsis a jail appeal. Judgment of conviction is challenged on the gFOund that without any acGeptable evidence available on record, the trial: court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforennentioned, para 1 (SL(pra). 3. I have heard Shri J.D. Bajpayee, counsel for the appellant and Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panet lawyer for theState and perused the juctgmentimpugnedandreccirdofthetrialcourt. —. 4. Case of theprosecution; inbrief, isthat on 07.01.2008 atabout 7 a.m. accused entered in the house 6f injured Ramratan with sharp panic weaponand Holding battle^jxe and caused grievous injury tQ the Virendra, Kewra Bai, Dhanmat and simple injury toRamratan. Both the legs of Virendra have been imputedseparately. A report (Dehati Nalishi) to this incident was lodged by the injured Ramratan to the Poliee Station, Randariya.District - KabiFdham vide Ex. P-1. All the injured personswere sent for medical examination vide Ex. P/2 to P/5. Injured Virendra and Kewra Bai were taken vide Ex. P/33 to P/36 and Ex, P/13 X-ray report of injured Virendra reveals thatthereis a fractyre on bpth legs as also X-ray Fepprtof Kewra Bai reveals thatthere is a fracture on her rightankle joint. 5. Spot map of the place of occurrence was prepared. After coinpleting investigation, charge-sheet was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham. Learned Additional Sessions Judge received thg case on trarisferfortrial. ^ • *• ' : . '.. '• • . . . . . ' '..'•.' • • '.•''' . :. • . . '•.•...- 6. 1n; order fo prove the guilt of the appellant/aecused, the proseeution has examined as many as 15witnesses. Statement of the accused/ appellant was recorded under Section 313 oftheGr.P.C.in whieh he has deniedthe material appearing against him. Hestated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the crime in c|uestion. ; . • v ! 7. Learned Additional Sessions Juclge-'<after hearing counsel for the respective parties, cbnvicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as afbrementioned: 8; The accused/appellant has further stated that while he himself alongwith his brotherlooking after his field, theh at the relevant time, ^ m Virendra came alQng with his family members armed with axe and atteoked on both bfthem. lyiy brother snatched axe from the hand pf V! • ! •! • -'^ ' ^ - '. Virendra and mQve surrbunding the area for protecting himself, as a resultofwhich.theyhavesustainedinjuries. 9, At the outset, learned counsel for the appellanf submits thatthe learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the ground of nght pf private. defence of the person and at that point df time the appellant has extiausted his right of defence and while exercising his . t^_ . . ' ' ' .' :• : right, Ue has riot committed any^^ffence. Learned Gounsel for the appellant further argued that the .leamed AdditionalSessions Judge sentehced the appellant fQr the commission of the offence and has diFected that the sehterrces were ordered to run separately, thereby the appellant is required to suffer incarceration of 14 years Rl along with "fine. •: , '.. ,: ^ \ 11 ' : ' :'' . ,. ' •/ •'. 10. Learned CQunsel for the appellant submitsthat on the date of cQmmission of offence, the appellant's age was 29 years and has committed aforesaid offence in exereise of his rigHt of private defehce as alsQ there was enrnity between the parties regarding the property .dispute, therefore, the appellanthas alreadysuffered incarcerationfrpm 08-01-2006 till tpday and the sentences under the aforesaid Qffence is sufficient. :' ; . '. / . ' • . 11. On theofher hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that the appellant has caused grievous injury to VirendTa, Kewra Bai and simple injury by sharp weapon to Ramratan and Dhanmat Bai. Hehce, the appellant is not entitled fpr any sympatl-iy and rightly convicted and sentenced the appellantas afbresaid. 12. In order to appreciate th& contentions of the parties, l have examined the eyidence aidduced on behalf of the prosecution. As regards the questipn of sentenceis concetned, 1 have perused the reGprd of S.T. Np.34/06 as also the testrmony of P.W.-1 Ramratan, P.W.2 Kewara Bai, P.W.3 Dhanmat Bai, PW-4 Rita Bai and P.W.-9 Virendra injuredwitness, Eyewitness P.W.-4 Rita Bai, P.W.-5 Durpat Bai, P.W.-6 Dr. V.P. Jayaswal and medical document Ex.P 3 to Ex. P22, Eye witness P.W.-11 Shiv Kymar are sufficient for drawing ! a&i ^x^ as' ^i5S;:. '"ws;?: 4 inference that the presenf appellant was caused grievous injury to Virendra, Kewra Bai and ^imple injury to Dhanmat by battle axe. !\ .' • ' ' . : :" '•' : '; , Repeated injury by sharp blunt object and grievous injury to injured yirendra itself proves gravity sirid seriousness bf the offence and infention of the appellant, 13. Qn the basis of evidence available on reGord, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant underSeetiQns 307, 326, 324, 324 and 450 of I.P.P. Conviction oflhe appellanthas y.:/ • -. .. . / ._"1 •...'•. eonfined on the ground of imp^tatipn of Virendra. The eviclence addi.ieed on behalfofthe prQsecution is sustainable under the law. 14. As regards the question of sentence is concerned, learned Additiohal Sessiohs Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 307 ofl.P.C. and sentenced himto undergb R.l. for7yearsandtopay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default ofpaymentof fine, to further undergo R.l. for-2 months, under Sectipn 326 of I.P.G; senteneed him 16 yndergo R.l. for3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, tofurther undergo R.l. for 2 months, under SeGtion 324 of I.P.C. sentenced him to undergo R.l. for1 year, under Section 324 pf I.P.G. sentenced him to undergo R.l. for 1 year and under Section 450 of T.P.G. sentenced him tQ undergo R.l. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.l. for 2 months for each count. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of tKe ciase, thesentence imposed upon the appellant is neither excessive norunjust and taking into considerationthe faet tHat the appetlant has caused injuries to 4 injured persons, senterice pf R.l. for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is jyst and proper. Likewise sentence imposed to the appellant in other offences are alsojust and proper, hoyvever, the order of the Court below to run the sentence edncurrently requjres reconsideration. .i ! ! : 1 • '.; . "- 15. Consequently, the-'appeal is partly •etllowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant-is hereby maintained. It is directed that the senfence awarded to the appellant shall run concurrently instead of sepat'ately. r^~~~~^ Sdf- TP.SharaN Judge^ tmteiwwaiiRiasRiE^.'.