A^-. Sl ^ ^?tl -3fl CF0000058606 '© Single Ber.ch (''riitiinal) s^""' ^-^s^-- t\--"' .*•**' E< THG HIGH COURT OE' M&DHY& PRADESH &T JABALP.UR. CRIMISAL APPEAL N0. 2- ^~'^7 OF 1993. papoo alias Gumek singfa, ;a/o jagtarsingla paajabi, ^ aged 24 years, S/o Village l&lgujari, P.S< ilaya shahar, jalandhar(punjab). Kb'pf'ase'ntS/o Tatibandh, ^.S. &aanalc,a, Distt. Raipur (i'i.p.) •• M APPSLL&ST. ( Et JAIL ) vs. THS 3TATE QP 'M.F./ I '» RESpai-IDEti'F. ^ caamAL APPEAL WIDER S-ECTIOH 374(25 OiE .THsr.'GRIMISI&L PSOGEDURE. CODEs APPELLANT RESPONDENT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 1993. Papoo alias Gurnek Singh. VERSUS State.of Madhya Pradesh. II-:!: Shri Atut Pandey counsel foT appellant. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2)0F THE CODEOF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGWIENT (28.01.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgmenf dated 22.2.1993 passed byAdditional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 191/1989 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 31.3.1989 FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by on'e Mohan Singh (PW-1) alleging that on 30.3.1989 when his nephew Santokh Singh (PW-3) was sleeping on a cot near Jair};.Petrol Pump, he was assaulted by the accused/appellant with a wooden plank pn account of which he had suffered grievous injuries on his head. 3. So^s to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution hasexamined 10 witnesses in support 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 charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication inthe case. In addition to this, one Pritam Singh (DW-1) was also examined by the defence in support of its case. \\- •^ :'Js"*%. r/'"% '% '^".i^1 it^.. &^ '.'s^ —2- 4 . After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case and that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, at the most, an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code can be made out against him. He alternatively suhmits that the appellant has already remained in jail for more than 15 months and if his conviction is found proper and maintained assuch by this Court, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the victim has sustained grievous injuries on his head due to which his eye sight has been affected and therefore, his conviction under section 307 IPC and resultant sentence is just and proper and not liable to be interfered with. 8. Mohan Singh (PW-1), uncle ofthe victim who had lodged the FIR has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident he was informed that his nephew had been assaulted by the accused/appellant and thereafter he took him to the hospital for treatment. Sukhmel Singh ' (PW-2), the witness of seizure of "blood stainedsoil and blood stained cotfrom the place of incident. Santokh Singh, the victim has categorically stated that on 30.3..1989 when he was sleeping on a cot near Jain Petrol ^ump, at about 7-8 p.m^the accused/appellant had assaulted him wjth a wooden ptank. According to this witness, initially the accused/appellant had given one blow on his head and when he tried tp get up he again gave the second blow thereon as a result of whrich he fell down and become unconscious. Sewa Singh (PW-4), the eye'witness to the incident has also supported the case bffhe prosecution. Injuries sustained by the victim are / /£^\ S 1 ^:";^^ Ss £ -3- duly supported by Dr. A.A. Saifi (PW-7) and Dr. Shankar Dubey (PW-8). Dr. A.A. Saifi (PW-7) has describedthe injuries noticed by him on the body of the victim which are as under: (i) injury on the skull in the size of 3" x 1/8" x skin deep with bleeding (ii) injury on the right parietal region in the size of 1/8" x skin deep with bleeding. Both the injuries, according to him, were caused by hard and blunt object. Thereafter, the victim was referred to Dr. Pradeep Pandey (PW- 9) who has categorically stated that the injuries sustained by the victim were grievous in nature. He has further stated that the victim remained in the hospital for more than a month and there was an injury on his eye also. Dr. Ashok Kumar Chandrakar (PW-10), the eye specialist has stated in his evidence that there was blood in vitreous cavity of both the eyes of the victim and onaccount of which his vision has been affected. 9. Thus from the record. particularly the medical evidence andthat of the victim himself, it is apparent that the injuries caused to him by the accused/appellant were of serious nature and could be dangerous to life also if the timely medical care would not have been prdvided to him. In this view of the matter, the findings of the trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 307 IPC is just and proper and cannot be interfered with in this appeal. Even the s.fentence awarded to him appears to be fully justified and does not call for any leniency. 10. Consequently, the appeal fails. It is dismissed. Sri' Pritinker Oiwa&er Judge ^^•^