HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR w %\ O‘w O Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2007 BaHu @ Mahesh, S/o Fagnu Chandrakar, aged 27 years, R/o Village Gorkapar, P.S. Gundard'ehi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) r Now residing at near Shiv Mandir, Murram Khadan, Kohka, Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Supela, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) {Criminal appeal under SectIOn 374 (2) of the Code of Crlmmal Procedure 1973} APPELLANT: (In Jail) RESPONT: DEN Present: Mr. Vinod Tekam, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Sinqle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL JUDGMENT (1-9—2009) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 31-10-2006 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Durg in Sessions Trial No.146/2005, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty for commission of offence under Sections 307, 506B & 294 of the I.P.C., sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years &’ pay fine of Rs.1,000/—, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months; to undergo R.I. for two years & pay fine of Rs.500/—, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month and to undergo R.I. for one month & pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for ten i days, respeo’tively. 2. Judgment of conviction & order of sentence is challenged on the ground that without any evidence of dangerous & grievous injury, learned Court below has convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. @ 2 @y’ 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23—3—2005 at about 6 a.m. Jubeda Begum (PW-3) was fetching water from public tap, the accused went near the public tap and used filthy language on Jubeda Begum and caused stab wound over her abdomen & buttock. Jubeda Begum was immediately shifted to Police Station Supela where she lodged F.1.R. vide Ex.P-8 and she was sent for medical examination. She was examined by Dr.'R.K. Damle (PW—1) vide Ex.P-1. One stab wound was found over her abdomen. Blood was coming from the injury and depth of the injury was not possible to measure. She was admitted in the hospital vide OPD ticket Ex.P—Z and bed head ticket Ex.P-3. Surgery was conducted on the same day. Huge amount of blood was found inside the abdomen. Six cut injuries over small intestine & three cut injuries over membrane of intestine were found. The doctor opined that if immediate treatment would not have been given to the patient she would have died. One knife has been recovered from the accused vide Ex.P-12. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P—ll. Blood stained clothes were sent for chemical analysis and presence of blood was confirmed vide Ex.P-18. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Durg, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial. . In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution ha 4 s examined as many as 11 witnesses. Examination of the accused was conducted under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence & false implication. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the Court below. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the light of the evidence of Dr. R.K. Damle (PW—1) & complainant Jubeda Begum (PW—3), he is not disputing the conviction of the appellant, but h want to argue on the question of sentence. e . Otherwise also, the injuries sustained by the complainant, nature of the injuries and complicity of the appellant in the crime in question are established by the evidence of Jubeda Begum (PW~3), Dr. R.K. Damle (PW—1), Dr. Yogesh Chandra Maruwal (PW-2), Dr. M.K. Dwivedi (PW-4), Riyaz Ahmed (PW-6) & Asgar Ali (PW—9) which are sufficient to prove the fact that at the time of incident, the ' complainant was fetching water from the public tap, at that time, the appellant came and assaulted her with knife and six cut injuries over small intestine, three cut injuries over membrane of intestine & stab wound over abdomen were found. Nature of injuries was grievous and dangerous to life. Conviction of the appellant is based on clinching and credible evidence sustainable under the law. adduced evidence to show the cause of causing such injury or any enmity. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, sentences imosed upon the appellant require reconsideration. p . Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Sections 307, 506B & 294 of the I.P.C. is maintained. Sentence of R.I. for seven years & fine of Rs.1,000/— imposed upon the appellant under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is reduced to R.I. for five years & fine of Rs.1,000/—. Rest of the senteces under‘Sections 506B & 294 of the I.P.C. are maintained. Sd/— T.P. SHARMA Judge As regards the question of sentences imposed upon the appellant, . t & he appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years pay fine of Rs.1,000/~ under Section 307 of the I.P.C.; to undergo R.I. for two years & pay fine of Rs.500/- under Section 506B of the I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for one month & pay fine of Rs.200/—, in default of payment Of fine to further undergo R.I. for ten days under Section 294 of the I.P.C. Age of the accused on the. date o commission of the offence was 27 years. V. Single stab wound was found over the body of the complainant. The prosecution has not f n . .