® W m vi 20“ mm (Watt) ’ cm. Np. 676 of 2005 e Mr. Justice Dhwendm Mish ! a APPELLANTS l. Ra Sui! Sr’c. Man 'Sai, Aged abouT 35 year's, (In Jail) ‘ 0c upa’rton- Cultiva’rfor. 2. &A nomnjom, S/oA Basonf, Caste—Bargah, 4 p Ag d abouf 3O years, OccupaTion—Cuhiva‘ror *m Ba h are residen‘r of village Sarma, Shauki 4" Ba dei, P.S. Surajpur, DisTT.Surguja (6.6.) ‘ X’s RESPGNDENT $ Te of Chhatfisgar‘hl Through P5. 1 Su ajpur', DisTr‘ic‘r Surguja (6.6.) 1" Presem': Mr. 3K: Shashi‘ri, Advocai‘e f r cppellan‘f No.1-Ransrxi. Mr. OP. Yadav,rAdvocu1‘e for I Mrs. Madhunisha Singh, Panel awyer for fhe respondenT—Sfafe. peHanf No.2—Manoranjon Per Dhirendrd Mishra, J; This criminai appe ‘ is éireC'ted againsf *iha judgmenf cf con§icfion and order of sen'rence da‘red 30” july, 2005 passed in Sessions Trial Na.6 /04, whereby iearnéci 3rd Addiiionai Sessions Judge, Sumjp r', Dis'i'rici' Sarguja has comic-red ihe appe'ilan'rs herein und Seci‘ion 307/34 of ‘i‘he I.P.C. and w;r\\. e WW,W,W Wm In 200 mm (W) mmam ~ *2 P WWIWW $31‘mm sen‘renced each of ‘i‘hem +p undergo RI. for 10 year‘s am +0 pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- an‘i in defaui'l' of paymenf of fine 'ro undergo uddi‘ficna! imprisnnmen‘f for 2 monfhs. Case of The prosacufion, in brief, is Tha'r, on 27.6.2003 around 11.00 mm. when cpmpiuinan‘r Mohnrsai came nuf of his house f0 ease himsalf, a cused Ransai <3: Manomnjan fook him near fhe house of Hoobl l by dragging, They asked for paf’ra ' and when fhe Vic-Hm repli d fhaf fhe Puf‘m is deposifed in fhe socie'ry, accused Mancran 'an, who was holding baffieaxe & ciub, assauifed fhe vicfim on b “rh of his legs as a resul'r of which he susfuined incised injurie over his iegs and feil on fhe ground and fhereof‘fer accuse Ransai, who was holding sword, assoulfed fhe vicfim on h s head. On fhe basis of fhe reporf of fhe complainant FIR (Ex P-1) was regisfered on fhe some day of obou‘r 10.00 om. Th complainant was sent for medical examinafion To Primary ealfh‘Cen'rre, Basdei from where he was referred f0 Disfr cf Hospifal, Ambikapur where he remained hospifalized up f0 6.8.2003. On fhe memorandum of fhe accused persons s ord di baffleaxe were taken info possession vide seizure emo of EXP-3 & EXP-5 respecfively. Seized weapons were se f for examinofion 'l’o Primary Healfh Cenfre, Basdei where D . RS. Singh (PW-11) examined The mm an 200 WW,W,W Wm (W) mam ammm WWiiiw°rm ' WWW *2. $Wm abave weapons and gave his repor‘f of EXP-7 & EXP-9 respecfively. Affer cample'l’ing inves1‘igufion, charge-shawl” was field agains‘f fhe appeHaM's. Duf~ing 'h‘ial, +he prosecufion examined 15 wi‘rnesses iri a“ and Thareaffer S‘m'femen‘rs of 'H'Ie appeHanTs were recarded in which fhey denied fhe evidence appearing againsf fhem in ‘i’he prosecu‘rion case and pleaded innocence (Si false implical’ion. They a so examined Vijay Pmsad (DW-l) and Keshwar Prasad (DW-Z) in fheir defence. However, learned Addifional Sessions Judge afier hearing fhe iearned counsel for' ‘i’he nespec‘l’ive par-fies has canvic‘l’ed and sentenced 'l’he appellani’s as menfioned i Paragraph 1 of fhis judgment Mr. Shashh‘i, lear ed counsei for appellant No.1-Ransai argued f'na‘l' fhe vici'im h s alleged fha‘r 'l’his appellan‘i’ gave only one blow by sword over his head, however, Dr. 2.5. Singh (PW- 11), who has examined fh injuries, has sfa'led in Para-10 of his deposifion 'i’ha‘i' ‘l‘he inj ry aver pariefal region was noi’ of grievous na‘l’ure bu‘r if w s simple injury and ‘l'he par‘l’s of The skull were infacf and sa e. He furiher argued fhaf bo1'h fhe seizure wi'rnesses of sword have furned hos‘rile and'fhey have no? suppor'red fhe cas seizure of sword has no of fhe prosecufion and 'l‘hus, fhe been established. Docfor has given EW,W,W does no? mzei’ i‘he descriwion of a sword. Even in The judgmen'r ‘rhe same size of fhe weapon has been menTioned by +he Trial court He furfher urguec Thaf iookmg 'i'o 1'he size of fhe injury over pariei’al region, H curmm‘ be said fha? fhe same was caused by a sword. SimHariy, Mr. Vaclav, learned counsel for appeHan'i' No.2— Manoranjan argued 'i'ha? no injury has been affribufed h fhis appelianf on The vi'l'u! par‘f of 'fhe vicfim. Dr. 3'.K. Bhu+ani (PW— 10) has sfa'l'ed The? on Kwuy exomino'i’ion bo‘rh 'i'he bones of righ'l' legl fibuio bone of cofegoricolly s‘m‘ted Tha'r X—ruy films of fhe viclim were nol a oiloble in ’rhe record of ‘lhe cour? and in fhe absence of X-r y films he could n01 opine clearly regarding fraclure. He ur'l'her argued ‘lhal Dr. Bhulani (PW* 10) has also sla'red +h 1‘ fraclures sus-rained by fhe Vic-rim could be caused by fallin over lhe sfone. He also argued ‘rhal' defence wifness Vijay P asad (DW-i) has categorically slafed lha‘r viclim Moharsai wa in drunken condifion, he was holding baffleaxe and in lhis sTa e he chased appellan‘l Manoranjan and while running he fried ‘ro scale The boundary wall as a resulf of which he fell on fhe gro nd. Manoranjan was frying lolsnajgh Ief‘f leg & ulna bone of lef‘l’ hand were found fractured. He hos W m W 200 Wm (W18) mama? ‘ WWW mwm mamqah‘iwm $3ifanaré¥i ._L'... siie of sword as 7 cm la‘ng 'and 5 cm wid'fh and +her3‘f0re, if at! 'i'he sharp edge of baffle‘ i’he s'ra-remenf of Keshw sm'i’er’nen‘f af Hulasrum ( The defence is refieC'l'ed who has aHso narra‘i’ed ‘I’h occurred. Moharsui (PW akso he was engaged in villagers, as is evidenf wi‘iness. Dr. R5. Singh susi’ained by fhe Vic-rim convicfion of ‘l’his appellani’ under sec-Hon 307 of IPC cannof be susfained. On ‘i’he ofher hanc supporfed fhe impugned Moharsm (PW-1) and cafegorically s‘i’a'red Tha' Moharsai was assaul‘l’ed by sword by . appellant Ransai on his 1xe and susiained injuries. Similar is ar Prasad (DW—Z). Referring To 'l’he PW-2) if was argued 'iha'i version of from fhe sfa'remen'l’ of ‘ihis wifness, e circumsfances in which the inciden‘l' -1) is quorrelsome person. In ‘l'he pasf several criminal aci’ivi'l’ies wi'l‘h fhe from 'i'he cross-examinafion of fhis (PW-11) has described ihe injuries as simple in nai’ure and Therefore, , learned counsel for The Sfai’e has judgmeni’ and argued fhaf complainani his wife Dhanesari (PW-15) have ead as also on his clavicle bone and oi'her par'rs of The ody, whereas, accused Manoranjan‘i assauH’ed fhe vic‘iim on bofh his legs (Sirhand as a resuli of which ’rhree fraci‘ure in'uries were suffered by Moharsai. He ‘ I M4 W 3am, W,W W m. 200 W W (13W) V 1’ ' "S‘ ’ his baffleaxe: in The meanwhile, Ransai also came There. In 'rhe said scuffle fhe ba++ieaxe fa” down and fhe vicfim fa“ on @ HW,W,W éixg:g v was haspH’alized for a c nsiderable periad and in This period ‘ iron Pod was fiXed on his igh'r ieg. He remained hcspiTaHzed up 1'o 10.8.2003 in fhe Gov rnmenf Hospifai, Ambikapur. Number of injuries sus+ained by T ’2 vicfim, weapons of offence used by appelIanTs 1’0 assouh’ fhe icfim and par'rs of The body on which fhe assaui‘rs were made c' early esfabiishes ‘H‘ie inTen'i’ion of fhe appeiianfs and fher‘efor' , ‘rhey have been righfiy convic‘i’ed ‘ under Secfion 307/34 of fhe IPC‘ l I have heard lear ed counsel for fhe par‘ries. I have i perUSed fhe oral and doc men'rary evidence available on record as also The impugned jud men'r. Moharsai (PW—1) ha deposed fha'l’ parfifion has faken in ¢ his family¢ however, fhei holdings are join‘l’ly recorded in fhe revenue records and rec, rd of land was wifh him. He deposifed fhe Pa‘H’a of land wifh 'lh bank, as he had obfained loan and he could nol' fake back The ame. 'Accused Manoranjan was asking for Pa‘Ha and on fhe daf of incidenf when he came ou'f of his house, accused persons caughf him and asked fo refurn The PaTTa. AT ThaT Time accu ed Manoranjan was holding baTTleaxe, whereas, Ransai was hol ing sword. Manoranjan assaulTed him on his legs and Ransai as aulTed him over his head. ThereafTer, bofh The accused person assaulTed him on various parTs of his ‘ Ii W W “i 200 mm (W) ?ma11%31m -g’ %afmm EW,W,W aw body as a resuH’ of which he fell down and blcod smr‘i'ed oozin from his body. His wife came f0 rescue him and infervened. Ofher vitlagers also ga'rh red: His wife was goiog “to iodge +312 report however, on fhe ay he me? “the Poiice Inépecfor, who fook him fo fhe police $ m‘ion and thereof-fer he lodged 'lhe repor‘l’ of EXP-1. In +51 cross-exomina?ion various quesfions hove been puf +0 ‘i’l'iis wii’ness and it has been suggesfed lho'r he is o quorrelsome person. I? has also been suggesfed fho‘f om of his feor appellant Monoronjan, his wife & mo'rher have lef‘l fheir home and ha\e sfar‘ied residing in fhe house of Nonhi‘ Similarly, fhe defence hos fried +o impeach 'lhe characfer of» This wii'ness by sugges'l’ing fho'r he had morried +hrice and ‘i'ho‘r he wos engaged in quarrel with number of persons in ‘l'he village and on fhis accoun‘l’ he is facing progecui‘ion. He has deni d fhe sugges'iion +ha‘i Manoranjan was no? hoiding ba‘i‘i‘ieaxe an he has faisely implica'ied him. He has denied fhe sugges‘rio +ha+ on 'fhe da'l'e of incident he was heavily drunk and in fha'l condifion he was involved in a scuffle wi'lh appellanf Manoraja , Ransai came 'io separafe fhem and during scuffle he fell o fhe ground as a resul'i‘ of which he susfained injuries and b ood sfarfed oozing. He has further denied fhaf he has falsel implica‘l’ed Ransai. g W m “i 200 WW (W) mwfaia; mmm WWW -7" mmi¥wm $§mm V Wm 1n 200 mm (W) mm awimm A3, WM§E¢W U WWW WWW D'naneswari (PW-15), wife of vic‘fim, has a!so corrobora'red ‘rhe sfa'remen'r of her husband and has S‘ta’red ‘H‘Iw accused Manomnjar was asking Pa'Ha from her husband Maharsui and on his reply Tha'r he has deposHed H in 1'he bank, bo'i’h fheappellanfs +ooi4 him from oufside cf her hause and when she wen? Ta rescu her husbandl she saw 'fha'f bo'i’h 1’he accused persons had 1* rown her husband on “the ground, accused Manoranjan was holding Baiua Le. baffleaxe and by which he caused inciSed ound on his leg. Ransai was holding sword and he hi'r Moharsui over his head & neck by Thai sward. She “fried 1'0 screen her husband, however] 'i'hey +hrea‘iened her by showing ‘rhe sword. In The cross-examinafion, she has denied The suggesiion ‘i'ha'i in facf Moharsai was going 'i'o i'he house of Manoranjan wi'ii ba‘H’Ieaxe. To ‘i'he suggesfion by The defence ‘iha'i’ the vic'rim susTained injuries as ‘H'Ie accused persons and viciim were nvoived in ‘ihe scuffie' she expressed her ignorance. Ofher wifnesses amely Hulasram (PW—2), Khaleshwar Prasad (PW-3) dc Rajmen Bai (PW-5) have 'i’urned hosfile and fhey have nof suppori’ed he case of 'rhe prosecufion. However, in 'i'heir cross—examinaf on 'l’hey have ‘iried ‘i’o suppor'i‘ ihe defence. Wm m 200 Wm (W) mmm *7‘ f i1 émw m. 31m [a “3‘ Even defence witness Vijuy Pmsad (DW-l) has admi‘H’ed i’ha? af fhe 'Hme of inc den? “the appeHam‘s and vic'firn were presem‘ on The spof and ey were engagedin figh'fing, Though he has sm'red Thu? Mo arsai was chasing Munoranjan wifh ba‘f‘rieuxe and in fhis pr cess he feii from 1'he baundary wali and susfained injuries. shwar Prasad (DW-Z) has also sfai'ed 'i'ha‘i' Moharsai was Chas ng Manoranjan whiie he was holding sword and a‘r 'rha'i iime ppeiian‘r Ransai came fhere and fried 'i'a in’i’ervene. They wer involved in ihe scuffle and in 'i'hai’ process The injured su mined injuries, as he fell over ihe sharp edge of 'i’he baffle xe. Both fhe defence iTnesses have given differen'i' version regarding The weapon of offence which fhe vic‘rim was carrying while he was in +he info ica'red condi'rion. Vijay Prasad (DW-i) has sfafed fha'r The vic im was holding baffleaxe and chasing Manoranjan, whereas, K shwar Prasad (DW-E) has sfated 'i’ha'l' The vicTim was holding s ord while chasing Manoranjan. However, from Te evidence of even The defence wiTnesses The presence f The accused persons aT The Time of incidenT when The vicTim susTained injuries is esTablished. The defence coul noT poinT ouT ThaT The appellanTs susTained any injury ove Their persons aT The Time of incidenT n 1 h e - @ W m “i 200 WW (Watt) mm amt Wia‘ilqawg ‘ EEK which negu‘res weir de cé fhaf fhe complainanf susmmed injuries, as he himself w s fhe aggressor and frying 1’0 chase The accused persons a whiie ihey weve‘involved in 'i’he scuffle, ihe victim fell d vén bver The baffleaxe as a resull’ of which he susfuined injur es. On fhe confmry, The version nf +he vic'i’im and his wi is corroborated from fhe medical evidence, as Dr. R.5i Sin h (PW-11), who examined The vicTim, hos found as many as 8 i ries described herein below and The defence has noT been a le To impeach The credibiliTy of The complainanT in his deTail cross-examina‘l‘ion. «4o k f n The injuries susTain d by The injured are as under:- 1. Bone deep incis d wound of size 8x3cm over righT leg below knee. 2. incised wound V ver lefT fooT medially of 5X11cm, laceraTed wound of size L5cm x 1cm over lefT fooT laTerally over a kle and incised wound over lefT knee iaTerally wiTh ob ique placed of size 6xil/2 cm. 3. incised wound o er righT forearm of size 1.5 x_1/2 cm‘ Abrasion of si 1x1I2cm over lefT elbow and one abrasion adjace T To above abrasion of size 1/2 cm x 1/2cm over The l ff elbow. 4. InciSed wound o size 1 x1/2cm over neck adjacenT To clerical. _ 5. ScraTch abrasi n of ox1/4cm over lefT shoulder arTerially. 6. ScraTch abrasi neck. of 12x1/4cm over The lefT side of if; n f 'u e o mm,m,m Wt W m 200 WW (W) mmwEfzétm “WWW F”, ammam 7. Incised wound o 1 X % cm cver Ief‘r side of chin 8. Incised wound o 1 x 1E- cm over ief‘r parie'ra} regian. E‘f is 'h‘ue fhaf X-r y fiims were noi' available on recarri, however, irea’ring docii‘ Le. Dr. J.K. Bhu'i‘ani (PW-10) of Dish‘ic‘i’ Hospi‘i’uL Ambik pur has coiegoricaiiy s'iaied fha-i' fhe paiien‘i was advised 1‘0 Xvmy and uf'izt' x-ray, his bone of righ'i ieg, fibula bone o lef‘i leg and ulna bone of ief’i hand were found fraci’ured a d piasfer was fixed. He has fur'i'her siaied iha‘i’ on 13.7.20 3 an operafion was conducfed on hs righf leg for fixing 1' e bone and 1he same was fixed by inseriing rod (sfernai ixsei’a) by puffing seven screws and rod. Hevhus aiso swe my? upm 6.3.2003 the vicnm‘igéé/ remained adniiHed in fh hospifai, however, he was no? able fo sfafe as fo when he wa discharged. He being an indepnden‘i‘ wifness, who has freafe “the vioi‘im, his version regarding fhe injuries susfained by he vicfim canno'r be doubfed simply because x-ray films wer noi’ produced and proved during frial. So far as 'i'he ar umenf 'I'ha'r injury susfained by Th vici’im over his head wa simple in na‘i'ure( as opined by Dr. R5. Singh (PW-11) in Para O of his deposifion is concerned, for inferring fhe infen'i‘ion f fhe accused, injuries alone are no? ihe circums'rance on fh basis of which iher infen’rio can be . i ‘ e e n WW,WW,W 2A: m§§§ mwm can be gafhered by considering 'H'ie ga'i'hered and 'E'he same weapon of affence used by fhe accused persons, force wii‘h made and por‘l’ion of fhe body where fhe insfanf case The oppeilonTs armed boTTleaxe and sword assoui'i'ed The s, hands, neck and head causing eighT arTs of his body, which have been z, The inTenTion of The appeiianTs is WW‘§1€‘@ ammmm which 'i'he assaui‘is were ‘ 'i'he assauH’ is made. In wiTh deadly weapon like vicfim over ba‘rh his ieg inju‘ries over various p described herein befor wri‘f Iorge. Thus, from fhe evi duly corroborofed from 11) and Dr. J.K. Bhufoni and proved 'i’he InJu ies oppeiion'rs in fhe crime i Therefore, in fhe Trial courT has nof co convicting and sen'fencir of fhe IPC. In The resui‘i', The iiabie fo be dismissed ar t1, dence of vicTim and his wife, which i The sToTemenT of Dr. R.5. Singh (PW- (PW-10) who have examined The vicTim susToined by him, The invoivemenT of 1 quesTion is esTabiished. considered opinion. of This CourT The nmiTTed any iliegaliTy or infirmify in g The appeiianTs under SecTion 307/34 appeal has no subsTance The same is i Id IT is hereby dismISSed /\ i i / “1i §“é%e Wm “i 200 mm (W) ~I2» s