HIGH CGUR‘? GF CHHAW5$ARK BILAS?UR Crimimi Anneai No.89? uf 2905 AFPELLANT: Knmlochcm, 5/0 Mcssumm, aged abou‘f 42 years, Rio Cho‘rescnhgc, Poiice Chowki fv’kakéi, 5§sft (warm) k! nwsfaia Versus RE5?ONDENT: Sm‘re of Chhnf‘risgarh; Through Police Chowki iviakdi, Poiice Sfafion Ko‘ndagaonf DIS‘rT. Bastar. {Crimina3 upped under Secfion 3Y4 (2) of fhe Code of Crimind Procedure: u *3 $73} - Presenf:4 Mr. DR. Shorma, Senior Advocm'e wifh Miss 5wafi Shukia. Advcca‘re for the oppeihnf. Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey: Advocate appcinfed by ‘rhe High 59w? Lagcl Services Commiffee 0n behaif 9f ?he appeiEant Mr. Ravindm Agrawai; Pana§ Lawyer for Tha S’ra'fe/r‘espondeya‘r._ Sinqle Eench: Hon’bie Mr. T.P. Sharma‘ LT ORAL 3UDGMENT , (3-11-2008) 1. This jaii anpeai is :jirecfed againsf The judgment of convicTian and order cf ‘seMenca ém'ed 11-11—2005 passed by $5 4*“ Additiona! Sessions Judge (Fcsf Tmck Courf) Easmr- 01' ingdulpur- in Sassions Trial Ne.278/20G5 whereby iearned AddiTiomi Sessions Judge afwr' holding The ap‘neafiant guihy for mmmission of {he offence of affempf Ta muréar; convicfed him under- Secfion 307 of The I.P.C. and sen'l'enced 1’9 undergo RI. for seven year-s. i imve heard Mr. DR. Sharma: Senior Advocai’e wi'rh Miss SwoT§ Shuk‘io: \)! Advoco're for 1'he appellant and Mn Vivek Kumar- Pandey, Advoca're agpoin‘red by we High Cour? Legal 5erv§ces Commi‘r‘ree +0 argue on behaif of ‘the appeiianf as aiso Mr. Ravindm Agrawai‘. Panei Lawyer for The Sm‘l'e/ respondent. Village Chnfesonhga injured Dashmu C“? Das?nma't (PW-1) who was having enmi'fy wi‘rh ‘rhargccused‘ was presen'r in ‘rhe courfyard of fhe accused where The accused' was sfanding wH’h iron bow. The accused foid the injured 141a? he wEif km him and he assaul‘red wi‘fh bow & arrow over the abdomen o‘F fhe injured and, ran away fwm The spot Whiie ‘I’he accused was running he was seen by “:‘he san of 1‘he injured/compiaimn‘r nameiy, .gPsem. The comgiainan‘r Qodged +he Fl‘R. vide EXP-1 and an The basis 0"? 'H'Ie F:I.R.‘Ex.P—1 iodged' ai' Police Chowki Makdi‘; registered F.,I.R. was lo§ged vide’E‘xP—9 in Poéice S'i'a'l'inn Kondagaen. Spa? map was prepared by 1he Poiice vide EXP-3. Pafwari aiso prepared fhe spa? map vide Ex.P—4. The injured was senf For medicd examinaficn vide EXP-10 and he was examined by Dr. Shirisn Soni {PW—11} vide ExiP-IOA who feund sfab’injury by arrow in abdomen. Large inies'iine c3: smaii infes-rine were Found injured. Surgery Deparfmen‘r of Maharani Hospi'i‘ai, Jagdaipur where The arrow was removed from The abdomen of the injured affer conduc‘ring surgical onera?ion.’ The said arrow was seaied vide ExP—5. One bow c§ Two arrows were seized from The accused vide EXP-8. a 4. AfTer compieTion of invesTigaTiom charge sheeT was fiied before The Judiciai MagisTraTe, FirsT Ciassi Kondagaon, who in Turn commiTTed The case To The CourT of Sessions Judge, BasTar aT Jagdaipun from where iearned 4f“ AddiTionai Sessions Judge, received The ease on Transfer for / Trial. 5. In order To prove The guiiT of The accused; The prosecuTion has examined as many as eieven wiTnesses. STaTemenT of The accused was recorded under SecTion 313 of The Cr.P.C. in which he denied The circumsTances appearing againsT him, pieaded innocence and faise impiica‘iion. 3. Case of The prosecuTion: in brief, is ThaT on lé-é-2G95 a? abouT 8 pm. in NaTure of The injury was grievous. The injured was referred To The' i; ’ A, r, U . I have perused The impugned judgmen‘l' as also The maTerial available on record. . Learned counsel appearing for The appellanT argued ThaT aT The Time of incident ‘rhere was campie‘l‘e darkness and no iigh‘i‘ wa$ avaiiabie. According 'ro The case of The yiosecu‘rien, the accused sho‘f arrow on 1’he injured by conceaiing himself and i‘r was na‘r possible for The complainanf/injured or any gerson 1'o see The accused. Na person has seen fhe accused a? 'Hne fime of commissian of fine offence. The ucaised has been faiseiv impiica‘i'ed oniy on The ground of enmi'fy. Learned counsei further argued Tha¢§he appeiian‘r is in cusi'ody since 18-6-2005, 'ihereby he has comple‘red more than fhree years éi four men'rhs of Jaii senfence. . Oh The oTher hand learned counsel for The STaTe/resoondenT sunporTed fhe Judgment of “the Mai Cour-f and submrrfed fhaf The accused caiied fhe i compialnan'i". assaui‘ied him and caused grievous injury over his abdomem on fhe ground of previous enmi‘ry. The injury was dangerous 1'0 life. The prosecution has proved ifs case beyond aii reasonable doub'rs. . As regards The quesTion of injury and iTs nafure: iT has noT been dispuTed by *he defence Dashmu G‘? Dashma‘r (PW—1) has sfa'red Thai' he was assauli‘ed by arrow over his abdomen. His version has been suppor‘l’ed by Sm‘r. Raibaii (PW-2), wife of fhe compiainan‘t/injureci and Prem (PW-3), son of The complainant Dr. Pradeeo Pandey (PW-10) has sfa‘i'ed fha‘r on 17-6- 2005 he has examined Dashmu and found one sfab injury over his abdomen by arrow: offer surgical opera‘rion he removed fhe arrow. Large infes'rine (it small iniesi'ine were injured. Blood was found in The abdominal cavi‘ry. The injury was sufficien‘l' 1'0 cause deaTh. Dr. Shirish Soni (PW-11) has sTa‘red 'rhai' on 17-6—2005 ’rhe injured/complainan‘r was produced before him for examinaTion, he examined The injured vide EXP-10A and found s‘rab injury by arrowg ‘rhe injury was grievous in naflJre. In view of the above evidence. if is esfablished Tho? The complainanT was assaulTed on The daTe of incidenT by arrow and he was caused grievous r34 dangerous injury. t @ 10. In order To grove complici'ry of The accused in The crime in question, The prosecuTion has examined The complainanT and eyewiTnesses. ComplainanT Dashmu (Q DashmaT (PW-1) has sTaTed in h§s evidence ThaT on The faTefui day aT abouT 6 pm. The accused calied him in from of his house" when he reached in from of The, house of The accused} The accused assauiTed him by arrow and caused injury over his abdomen. Iron porTion of The arrow inserTed inTo his abdomen; he Tried To puli ouT The arrow, buT iT was noT possible for him To remove The arrow and he was admiTTed To The hospiTai where a‘FTer conducTing operaTiohr, The arrow was removed. He has furTher sTaTed ThaT on seeing ThaT arrow inserTed inTo his body, his son Prem raised cries whereupon his wife Raibaii came and ThereafTer, They called oTher persons. $ 11. SmT. Raibali (PW-“2), wife of The complainant has supporTed The version of > her husband. Prem (PW-3), aged abouT seven years; has also supporTed The version of The complainant They have admiTTed in Their cross-examinaTion ThaT on The faTeful day There was compleTe darkness and The accused shoT arrow by concealing himself: Therefore, iT was noT possible To see The accused. BuT The complainanT has specifically admiTTed ThaT aT The Time of incident. he was called by’The accused and when he wenT in fronT of The house of The accused, he was shoT by arrow; alThough iT was dark night. The accused called him and shoT arrow on him. His version is supporTed by The evidence of his wife 6i son as also The prompTly lodged F.I.R. EXP-1. .AfTer appreciaTing The evidence available on record and relying upon The evidence of The complainant: his son 6i his wife, The Trial CourT has convicTed and senTenced The appellanT under SecTion 307 of The I.P.C. The Trial CourT has convicTed The appellan‘T on The basis of reliable d4 credible evidence. The convicTion is susTainable under law. '4‘? . As regards The quesTion of senTence: The Trial CourT has senTenced The appellanT To undergo RI. for seven years. Taking inTo consideraTion The naTure of injury and The Trivial cause of inviurye senTence of five years‘ RI‘ wouid be sufficien'r for convicfing The appeilan‘r under Secfion 307 0f The IRC. 14.Consaquen11y, fhe appeal is par‘rly aiiowed., Convié‘rion of The uppelian'r' under Sec’iion 307 of The I.P.C. is mainmined, however, The appeilanf is senfenced f0 undergg RI. for five years insfead nf RI. for seven years. The appeiianf is in custody from 18-6-2005. He shall be en‘l'i‘l’ied for sef off for fhe period already undergone by him. W Sdl- ; T. P. Sharma Judge / \ //