s y&T••v . -L'^AU'%-£;..".-'-:^<!£i'SSni<a'^n ,^^-<^'-i..r~-^v;\.^l-:^i«tr^M'^^ y '-i.e' ^Sli?'%S;;'i-;fi&SSB^"'ii ^s^ss'^^^s s iggos '^'...•-'^^•s."•,->?'s^'--—^^r.•£.y.^A^.^';^'. 'ViSSS'^i'SKSSS ijK?:^sSl'' SE •^ '^v'- '!y.i:'-''^ %%c»sfiy& ;'~.%':-.:''^yw^^" •::-^^:: ~^:-::::.: ^- 'S'^-'S1^- 's . ^•^- ^'^re m;®-^CyRT.yOE.:MADHYA,y?ff.DESHI,AT^,^ Crimi'nsl-.ADpeal :r^^!:^.^9l. -i-.;':^-'.^ ^^.•.••; l";"-^ .jf AI-P5LLANT:'. ; .KbbrbabaTa'y'Son of- tem'- Aws^B^-I^niya,,,^ . aoed aoou^\.36 y°ars,v.r.!5Si<3^itE ^ . •<Mltivs^oi of Baip'eIr,-P^l^<:'e:/'St-&%<)n'.^ Xom., 'Distri'cte1 Sil;asRU^>:('-;i'''.;:r^.'.^'/.'Y '/er^tiS RC;?PONBE :-' . Tlie S-ta-te of iwadhya'.P.TftGis.Sb,: .y : ' • : . .• • . •.'•.'/•': -:-- . ..• . . ,'• •; AP.9^ICAnGii,UNDEB_ST3CTION 374(2^: QF._33.g '. :CGDT::i'eF :CRIMa:NAL:"PROGl:;DUKH ;:: •' CrVT3./_~!_r'-i- TQn_ '"t"wsa SB ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 1991 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Khorbahara S/o Ram Awatar Loniya. . State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Rakesh Pandey,counsel for the appellant. Shri U.K.S. Chandel PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDERSECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (05.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.4.1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 213/1988 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on the basis of information given by one Sokhilal (PW-1)on 3.3.1988, Dehati Nalisi (Ex. P-1) was registered and based on the said Dehati Nalisi FIR Ex. P-23 was registered on 3.3.1988 itself. It is alleged that on that day at about 10.30a.m. accused/appellant had assaulted the victim namely Sokyial (PW-1) with the helpof battle axe causing grievous injuries on his body. It is alleged that the appellant was facing trial under Section 302 IPC and was detain&d in Bilaspur Jail and during this period his wife Mina Bai became pregnant and held victim Sokhilal responsible for the same and on account of this, there was an enmity between the complainant and the accused/appellant. On 3.3..19S8 whe'n complainanVvictim was going on his bicycle, -2.' accused/appellant inflicted a blow with battle axe and caused the following injuries to him: (i) Incised wound on right hand on account of which 1/3 part of his hand was amputated. (ii) Incised wouirid on the back of teft arm iri the size of 15 x 10x6c.m. (iii) Incised wound on the right side of stomach in the size of 3x2x1 c.m. ~ . (iv) tncised wound on the right leg, cutting tibia bone in the size of 10x6x4 c.m. (v) Contusion on the back of the head in the size of 2 x 1 x 1 c.m. 3. tn order to establish the guitt of the accused/appellant the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure inwhich he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, two witnesses namely Ledwa (DW-1) and Devlal (DW-2) have also been examined by the defencein support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant for the offence as mentioned above. However, other accused Radhelal has been acquitted of the charge levelled against him. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment under challenge. 6./ Counsel for the appellant submits that the entire case ofthe prosecution is false and fictitious. He submits that when based on the same sefofevidence, other accused person has been acquitted ofthe eharge levelled againsthim, the appellant also ought to have been awarded acquittal and in convicttag him by the impugned 'judgment the Court below has committed a serious error of law. 7, On the other handcounsel for the respondent/State supports thejudgment impugned and submits that looking to the manner in •which the complajnant has been assaulted and the fact that weapon ifsed inthe incident has been recovered from the accused/appellant i€-^\ r^-_ ^ m^ss^ s "^*"'y ^ - 3— himself, findings recorded by the Court below convicting and sentencing him are just and proper and do not call for any interference in this appeal: 8. Complainant - Sokhilal (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident when he was going on his bicycle to Bilaspur, on the way accused/appellant and the co-accused who were hiding themselves under a mango tree armed with battle axe and club, stopped him; accused/appellant assaulted him with battle axe as a result of which bone of his right leg was completely cut whereas the co-accused had assaulted him with the help of club. Statement of the complainant is supported by Shaniram (PW-2) who has stated in his evidence that when he was tilling his field and after hearing the cries of the complainant had rushed to the spot and seen the accused/appellant assaulting him with battle axe and when he asked to spare him, he did not listen to him. Banshilal (PW-3) has stated in his evidence that after hearing the cries when he reached the spot, he saw the accused/appellant chasing the complainant carrying battle axe in his hand. He has also stated that when the victim fell down, the accused/appellant assaulted him causing injuries on his hands and legs. Dr. Rajiv Ratan Tiwari (PW-6) who had medically examined the victim has, vide medical report Ex. P-3, noticed five aforementioned injuries with amputation of his right hand. Mithilesh Singh (PW-11) has also supported the case ofthe prosecution. 9. In view of the aforesaid factual analysis which has been duly supported by ttie evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecutidn particularly the complainant himself, Shaniram (PW-2), Banshilal (PW-3) and the 'doctor who, had examined the victim and •Jound aforementioned five injuries on his body, this Court is of the considered opjnion that the view taken by the Court below convicting the accused/appellant for the offence uncfer Section 307 IPC is just and proper and does not call for any interference with the same. •^ ..:I=... .-\ •:'^, '^F^sv^ '^"" ,,.'5? :S&1"S" A -LI- 10. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such. Judgment impugned is hereby maintained. __._.— Sdl- pritinker Diwaker Judge r^