l?7tf<'S'\?'^y^(A>w^^ 'Sf^^ RESPOHDENT • '^ \ti XN THE HIGH COURT OF 30DICAT(JRE AT iTABMJ'UR ertiaiaal A^aeal N©.2-^^-°0f1997 CKtemoraBduRiofAppeal^/gectioa 374 (2) Of Cr.P.C.) Marli Patel S/o Udfaav Patel aged 25 years, r/o Kavrlba tlaana Ptissore Bistrl.ct Raigarh (MP)» TJdhav Patel S/o Setaraa Patel aged 38 years» Kawrtba tbaaa Passore fealasil ahd d^strifet. Ralgarh (MB)« Versas T&e Sfcate o£ Madhya Pradesh tbreugh Sistrict Magtstrate Raigarla. MBaOBAKBUM QF AB'PEAI. U/SHZTieH 374 (2) ©FeE^'«C, •• / ^^i^^B^e^ .>\ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SmaleBench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prasharrt Kumar Mishra Cr. A. No. 2620 of 1997 Murli Patel and another. Veraus The State of Madhya Pradesh. JUDGMENT PostftK-f)9-(B-2011 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Nishra Judge / • >. / li HIGH CCHWT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR Cr.A.No.2620of1997 APPELLANTS RESPONDENT yersus Murii Pateland another. The State of Madhya Pradesh. Smt. Indira Tripathi, counsel forthe ap!»llants. Shri Arvind Shukla, Pansl Lav,yer for »ieState. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra JUDGMENT (09/08/2011) The appellants have been convicted for offence under SecUon 324/34 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo Rl for two years and fine of Rs.50)/-, in defautt ofpaymentoffinethey have been directed to undergo further Rl for three months. (2) Case of the prosecution, in short, Is that PW-1 Ratiram lodged an FIR at 13.25 hours on 23/(»/1996to the effect that in.iured Padman Patel had gone to vitlage Kavariha in the morning to bring milk and when he (Ratiram) was about to proceed for village Pussore, at that time injured came on a bicycle and lied down witti an injury on his abdomen and left hand. The Mur^l informed him that Udhav Patel of village (tevariha has - / ".. inflicted blow by means of knife and at the time of assault Muril Patel was also present. The injured was sent for medical examination on the same dayand in course of investigatlon knife was seized on the memorandum (Ex.P/11) pf accused Murii Patel. Ex.P/12 is theseizure memo. The "charge-sheet was flled foroffence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. <t -3-- (3) The prosecuCon examined PW-1 Ratiram Patel ffrst informanf), PW-2 Shwaji Kumar Panda, PW-3 Radman Patel (injured), PW-4 Dr. R.N. Mandavi, PW-5 Chintaram, PW-J6 ^gya Ram Bandey, J3W-7 Rs^sh Joshi, RW-8 Dr. S.K. Mishra, PW-9Ganpat, RW-lORotertToppoand RA/-11 Loknath. In their examination .under SecBon 313 of Cr.P.C. the appellante alyured ttieir guilt and stated that th^ have been falsely implicated. hovrever, ttey did n&tsybmitany defense witness, (4) The conviction has been rwordedon the basfe of statement made by PW-1 RaUramand RA^ F^tiran. Leari^counselfottheappellants has argued that the prosecuBQn has not proved its case faeyond all reasonabte doubt and that Uiere are material contradicBons with regard to injuries as well as tte weapon, therefpre, the apReIlantdeserves to be acquitted. (5) On ttie other haodjeamecl State icounsel has aigued that the prosecuUon has proved its case by examining the first inftn'mant and injured as well as the medical offteer and the charges have been ftilly prwed, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. (S) PW-1 Ratiram is the witness who informed Head Constabte Aagya Ram Pandey (PW-6), whenthe said Constable was on duty jn fte Hospital and.onthe basfe of inflonnafion supplied by Rafiram this Head .-./ Conslabte ihformed the Polfce Stah'on and the FIR was taken dovm. PW- 6 Aagya Ram Pancley h^ pu»(ed.tbe contente of ilRAQUflh PW-1 has denied Ihat he has lodged the FlRbut he admite ttiat he had taken the injured to Dr. Gupta whoexamined tte injured for the first time. ff) Thie mostcrucial witness is theinjured Radnan.Patel (^ This 1 witness has stsitedthat when he was in the b^el shop (rf one Randa, accused Murli Ritet came over the place anAthereafter accused Udhav Patel came. He was placed in between two accused persons and atttiat time Murti Patel brought him dwmand both of them assaulted Nm. MurB gagged his mou , Mr. Panda tried to intervene lait hewas inUnnidated, ttierefore, Mr. Panda went away. Udhgv Patel brought out a knifs from his waist and tried to Infltel injuiy wtuch vras stopped by him by hls hand and received cut wounds on his palm. |n the.meanwhile, Udhav Patel pressed his neck by oneAand and from the other hand he inflicted knife blowon his abctomen. He also^^ysthatRatirainf^itel C:^tf-'t^^*hi(nto Raigarh Hospital where he wasadmitted for 15 days-PW-S Dr. S.K. Mishra has treated injured in Go^mment Hospilal, Raigarh. Ex.P/7 is ttie report about the.examinErtion ofwBapon whictijs ffiferEeda^ 'gphear' by fte doctor. Ex.P/8 is theinjury report in which it is mentioned that the patient has received incised wQund on left lumber region.size being 6 cm. x 5 cm. x5 cm. with loops of smalt intesUne gnd large intostine floating outside the wound andthe patientwas immecliately admitted in the male surgical ward and shifted to operation theator for smetasncy su^ery. (8) From the above set of evidsnce tt is cleariy established ttat appellant Udhav inflicted knife blow on the abdomen of fte injured and Murii Pate^ pushed and brought him down and initially bctt^ of Urem >. / assaulted him and later on Udhav Patel inflicted knife blow on his abdomen. Thus inifial assault by brth Vhe accused and knife blow by Udhav Patel is fully proved. (9) Under Sectjoh 324 of IPC the maxlmum period of sentence is three yeas, tir with fme. or wBh both. In this case appellant Udhav has not femained ih jail for a single dayjashe was entargesl <»anUctpateiy bait ^•t^-"- @ -^ and appellant Murli Patel was arrested on 31/05/1996 andwasreleased on 18/06/1996. Thus, he has rsmained in jail for about 18 da^s. Itis appellarrtUdhavPatelwhohascausedtheiRjuryontheabdomenofthe iryured by knife. (10) Since the finding of guilt recofded by e trial Court is borw out from evidence available on record and no perveraityjsfoundeittierjnthe finding or in the manner inwhjch the evidence has been marehalled by leamed Sessions Court, Bie convit^on of the appellants under Sec8on 324/34 of IPC is upheld, however. the sentence part is r«|Uiredto be considered particulariy in tte tight<rf the fact that the incident had taken place about 15 years back i.e. on 23/05/1996. The appellant No.1 Murii Patel has been convicted uncter Section 324 of I.P.C. with the aid of Section 34 of I.P.C. He has already remalned in jail for about 18 days, Uierefore, the sentence awarded to appellant Murti Patel is reduced to period already undergone. In so far as appellant No.2 Udhav Patel is concerned, he has inflicted knife blow on the abdomen of injured Padman, however he has not remained in jail for a single day. Keeping in view the long lapse oftime. thesentenc®oftwo years Rt appears to be harsh and therefore, jt is directed that the appellant No2 Udhav F^tel shall undergo sentence of Rl for six months, instead of Rl for two years. / "->• (11) Accjardingly, ie appeal is allowed in part. The appellante are already oh bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. The appellant No.2 Udhay Patel shall be taken into custody for sending him to jail to suffer Rl for six months.-ttie fine sentence shall remain unaltered. Sd/- '< Judge