w> 's^ ^N ^ ^...^^ N^'1 ^-. CF0000061053 ^tff^ <^1 •IN THE HIGH COURT OF H&DHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR. CRI.A. N0. V^G\ /1996 Agpellant: ~(In JailJ Vijay Kumar MrAdha s/o Upendra Nath, Mridha, aged 19 y^s/ Oecupation- Agr.i.culture, R/o •9illage-Vishram-HIgar, P^S^Ramanujganj,Distt-Sarguja (M»P,)i^ ^ VERSUS .Res£ondent_:_ State of Madhya Pradeish CRIMINAL^PPEALinSDER SECTIGN 374(2) OF THE CRI . PRGCEDURE CODE• . -- -----..—...-.-..--.—— f", HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTIBGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Nr. jlvstice Pritinker Diwalcer) Cr-iminai Appeai No. 1061 of 199@ APPELLANT RESPONDENT Vijay Kumar Mridha ^ VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh Smt. Anju Ahuja, counsel for the appetlant. Shri Niraj Mehta, P.L for the State. CRXMIIMAL APPEAL UNDER SECTXON 374 (2) OF TS1£ CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDyRE. J_U D6ME NT (11.04.2011) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 25.06.1996 passed by Sessions Judge/ Sarguja. In Sesslons Trial No. 55 of 95 convictsng the accused/appeltant under Section 307 of IPC and sentendng hlm to undergo rlgorous imprisonment for five years. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.6.1994 at about 3 a.m., the victim Samir Kumar Hatdar (PW-2) was assaulted by the appeSlant by means of knife on his stomach as a resutt of which he sustained gnevous injur/. On the same day^ at about 6.15 a.m,, FIR Ex. P-3 was Sodged by the victim (PW-2) and based on this FIR.. offence under Sectjon 307 of IPC was reglstered agalnst the appellant, After completion of investigatjon, Chalian was fllied on 07.09,1994 under Section 307 of IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appeltant guslty, prosecution has examined 07 witnesses in suppQrt of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the r -^- charge levelled against him and pleaded hjs innocenc®anct false jmplication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court ha§ convicted and sentenced the appeilant for the offence under Section 307 of IPQ hence^ the present appeal. 5. Meard counsel for the parties and perused the materiat available on record indudjng the judgment tmpugned. 6. Contentjon of Smt. Aahuja^ learnecl counse! for the appeilant js that there js absolutely no evidence on record to show that the injury sustained by the victlm was grievous In nature. In this respect no X-ray report whatsoever has been produced by the prosecution and therefore it cannot be §aid that the injury sustained by the victim was gri^/ous in nature, She submits that only one injury has been caused by the appeitant and therefore it is ctear that he had no intention to kill the victim. 7. On the other hand supporting the impugn©djudgment It has been argued by Shri Mehta, tearned counsel forthe State that though only one injury has been caused to the victim by the appellant but the same is on the vital part of his body i.e. on stomach. He submits that as per the medical report Ex.P- IA, the injury sustained by the vlctlm was dangerous to iife and in query report Ex.P-2A dated 19.10.1994 it has been opined by the ctoctor that the injury sustained by the victlm was very dangerous and suffident to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature if he was not treated promptly. 8. Samir Kumar Hatdar (PW-2), the vicfclm in his evidence has stated that the appeSlant is his neighbourer anct one Mahamaya Is his sister-in-law. He has stated that there was some land dispute between the appeljant and his sister-in-law /.s:a5\ 1 ^., '•£&& <%»^ ^ ^*- ^. -3- Mahamaya, Accordlng to him, sister-in-law of the appeltant had informed him thst the appellant Is maklng efforts to get his name recorded jn place of her husbanci in the Sand records whereas in fact It !s she who is entitjed for the said land. During enquiry on being asked by the Revenue inspector he had given a statement that bejng the widow crf late Subrat, the name of the sjster-sn-Saw of the appeliant shouEd be recorded In the land records and similar statements were also made by the other vlllagers, On accou.nt of this the appellant used to quarrel with hjm. On the date of jnddent when he was sjeeping jn hls court-yard, at about 3 a.m. the appellant gave a knjfe blow on hls stomach and at that time he was awaken. He caught hold the person and could recognize that jt was the appellant who gave him the sald knife blow. He has stated that when the appe!!ant was trymg to run away., upon hearing his cry^ his nephew Dulal @ Sfdhharth and father Sakhanath also came there and saw the appetlant running. Thereafter other vltlagers also gathered there and he was shifted to hospital and then the report was lodged. 9. Dr. B.R.Sharma (PW-1) who first medically examlned the victim in the hospita! and thereafter referred hlm to district hospital Ambikapur has stated that Ex.P-lA is the medical report of the victlm and Ex.P-lA is the query report dated 19,10.1994. In his medlcal report he found an incised wound over Epigastnn of the victlm size 2,5 cm X 1 cm X 6 cm. Accordjng to him depth could not be measured as jt might injure internal organ and Patjent was In shock. He has opined that jnjury was dangerous 'm nature, was caused by hard and sharp object and time of Injury was within 3-4 hours of the examjnation, In his query report Ex,P-2A he hss opined that the injury sustained by the victim was very dangerous and his death was possible if he was not treated promptly. ^ m^SSS.^ 3 -4- 10. Sakhansth Hstdar (PW-3)/ father of th©victim in his court statement has stated that upon hearing cries of the vjctim he woke up and saw the appellant runnlng from the place of jncident, He has stated that after see.ing th©injury of his son Samir/ he was shifted in the hospital, He has further stated that whsie running the appeilant ieft his slippers on the spot itself and later on the same was selzed vide seizure memo Ex.P-9. Aecording to hlm he could recognlze the appeilant. Panmai Biswas (PW-4)/ a neighbourer of the vjctim has stated that upon hearing nojse he went to the house of the vicfcim and saw him in injured condjtton and on being asked the victim informed hsm that the appellant gave him a knife b!ow and thereafter the victim was taken to the hospltal. Dr, N, P, sharma (PW-5) has stated that on l.6.1994 he performed the operatlon of the vlctim, Thls witness has not been cross-examined at all. P.K, Lakda (PW-6)/ the Investigating Officer has supported the prosecutlon case. The inspector K. R.Kamre (PW-7) has done part of investjgatjon. 11. Msnute examinaUon of the evjdence makes st clear that on the date of inddent the appellant assaulted the victim by knife causing grievous injury on hss stomach. The doctor has opined that the injury sustained by the vlctim was very dangerous and sufficjent to cause his death if proper treatment was not given on time. 12. In view of the aforesaid factuat analysis whlch has been duly supported by the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution particularly the vlctim himself, his father Sakhanath Haldar (PW-3) and the doctor who had examined the victlm and opined that lf the vlctsm had not been given prompt treatment, he would not have been aiive^ this Court is of theconsidered oplnion that thevlew taken by the Court ^:. <..^. d^ ^\ -5'- below convicting the accusecl/appejiant for the offence under Section 307 IPC is just and proper and does not catl for any jnterference with the same, 13. Considering the totality of the case, conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained but jooking to the facts and circumstances of the case,. in particuiar, the incident had taken place in the year 1994 i.e. more than 16 years back, that at the tlme of incident the appeltant was aged about 19 years/ Jail sentence imposed on him is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years from that of 5 years as has been done by the Court beiow. However, in lieu thereof, the appeliant is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,QQQ which would be pald to the victim Samlr Kumar Haldar (PW-2). The appellant woutd get the advantage of this judgment, if he deposits the fine amount imposed on him by this Court. As the appellant is on bail,. hss bail bonds stand cancelled and he is directed to be sent back to jail forthwith to serve out the remaini.ng part of the sentence imposed on him. 14. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge