@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. App. No. 1376/ 1996 Q SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar APPELLANT Dmesh Dewangan alias Dinesh Limje Versus RESPONDENT The State of Madhya Ezadcsh (Now A Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT Post for judgment on \\ .12.2009 Sd/— R.L. Jhanwar‘ Judge \\ .12.2009 a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. App. No.1376 of 1996 SB: Hon’bie Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar Appearance: Shri N.P. Koshta, counsel for the apyellarit. Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Pemel Lawyer for the State. J U D G M E N T (Delivered on \\ .12.2009) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.08.1996, delivered in Speciai Case No.18] 1§95, whereby, ’dle 1eai‘ned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dui‘g, has convicted the appellant under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1000] —, in default of payment ”of tine to further undergo RI. for 2 months. (1) (2) Prosecution stoxy in brief is that the Nathelal is the Saipanch Gram Panchayat, Sirn'. All members of the Gram Panchayat, Sirm' were required to prepare Identity Cards, therefore, they went to the appellant for snapping their photographs. The contract was given to Karuna Photo Studio for the photographs. A person from that studio came twice in the village and took APPELLANT Dinesh Dewangan alias Dinesh Limjs sfo Pooran Lal Limje, aged about 22 years, residsnt of Kamila Studio, Gunderdehi, district Durg ‘(MP) (Now CG) Versus “F . RESPONDE§T The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now £ CG) through Station House Of&cer, Police Station Gunderdehj, A district Durg(MP) (New CG). @ photographs of all the members. As the photographs were not clear, he was asked to again take the photographs on 19. 12.1994, G j but he denied. On 19.1.1995, complainant— Nathelal went to Karuna Photo Studio, Gunderdehi to enquire about the photographs, on which, a quarrel took place and the appellant assaulted the complainant and abused him. Nathelal reported the matter to the Police Station—Gunderdehi. The report is EX. P/ 1. He was sent for medical examination. The medical report is EXP/3. After recording statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 1" ‘completion of necessary legal formalities, investigation t commenced. § a (3) After.completion.of the investigation, charge sheet was tiled before the Special Judge, Durg. (4) The Special Judge, Durg framed charges against the appellant under Section under Section 3 (1) (x) 0f the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act and Section 323 of the IPC and read over and explained to the appellant, who abjured the guilt stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. (5) The learned Special Judge after evaluating the evidence and hearing the counsel for respective parties, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocmes), Act and convicted and sentenced him under Section 323 of the IPC as above. (6) I have heard‘learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record of the trial Court x (7) Leamed counsel for the appellant argusd that the prosecution has failed to prove the evidence under Section 323 of G t the IPC as evidence of the Doctor has not been produced. He also ‘ argued that there are so many discrepancies, therefore, the ‘ Witnesses are not reliable and the accused/ appellant is entitled to i be acquitted of the charge under Section 323 of the IPC. He lasltly 1 urged that if Court finds the appellant guilty then a lenient View in reducing sentence of the appellant be taken. i £8} According to the evidence of the complainant Nathelal (PW- i l), it is clear that the appellant was brought to village Sini for snapping photographs of the members of the Panchayat and for that a contract was given to him. It is evidenthom his statement that there was an order from the State government that if anybody wants to be a Sarpanch or Panch, he must have the Identity Card, therefore, photographs were required. To snap photographs of Panch and Sarpanch, Ramkisun Manjkpuri, Secretary of the Panchayat, $irri brought the appellant to take photographs of Panch and Sarpanch. The appellant came and took photographs and as the photographs were not clear, he asked him to come again and take the photographs, but herdid not come. Then'the Secretary went to the Photo Studio and told the appellant to take new photographs as the earlier photographs were not clear. He also deposed that he told the appellant if he is not in a position to take new photographs, then he should refund the money. Rs.400/ - were given to the appellant to take photographs of Panoh and Sarpanch and Rs.100/- were given to take group photographs. According to this witness, he went to the Studio of the appellant at Gunderdehi along with Bhagwat, Bisahatram and so many persons and they asked to snap the photographs again, but the appellant refused and started abusing and thereafter, assaulted Nathelal. The appellant brought'lathi from the shop and assaulted him due to which the complainant received injuries. ’Bhagwat intercepted @ them, he also recdved injuries. Then report EXP/8 was lodged at Police Station Gunderdei and he was medically e)q(amined. He stated that he did not know that who was the owner of Karuna Photo Studio, but acconling to the contract, the appellant was required to snap the photographs. He has stated the names of the persons of whom photographs had to be snapped. No question was asked in cross examination about the assault. Thus, it is clear that the appellant assaulted Nathelal. a ‘(9) Bhagwat (PW— 1) and Bisahatram (PW-3) also stated that the appellant assaulted the complainant. The statement of complainant is also corroborated -by the statements of above witnesses ‘and also corroborated by the F.I.E., which was lodged just after the incident. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved that the appellant assaulted Nathelal beyond reasonable doubts. (10) Considering the abov‘e facts, I am of the View that the learned tn'al court has not committed any error of law in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 323 of the IPC. Thus, the conviction of the appellant under Section 323 of the IPC is ah‘nmed. (11) So far as the sentence is concerned, the substantive sentence of 6 months R.I. awarded by the trial Court is reduced to 3 days and the appellant is sentenced tb 3 days, which the appellant had already suffered, instead of 6 months. However, sentence of tine is maintained. (l2) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge