BilsWSBia. APPELLANT: (In Jail) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Crimjnal Appeal No.280 of 2006 Bihari @ Rajkumar Yadav, S/o Ramji Yadav, aged about 37 years, Occupation Labour, R/o Village Chhatauna, P.S. Arang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus {Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Proeedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Vivek Rathore, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate forthe State/respondent. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J JUDGMENT (14-7-2009) 1. Thisappeal is directed against the judgment of cpnviction and order of sentence dated 12-1-2006 passed bythe 14 Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur in Sessions Trial No.365/2005, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty for commission ofoffence under Sections 354, 324 & 326 of the I.P.C., sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, rigorous imprisonment for one year and rigorous imprisonment for five years & pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, respectively. 2. Judgment is challenged on the ground that without any clinching and credible evidence the Court below has convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as also the material available on record. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 5-10-2005 the prosecutrix (PW-1) went to fetch water, her husband was not present in the house, when she returned back to her house after fetching water and entered into her house, he found that the present appellant, who is elder brother of her husband, was present in her house, he caught hold of her hand, RESPONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Arang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ui snoA9u6 )ou ej9M saunfui pies 8i)i pue 3i\\ 0} snojsBuep jo {B^ }ou 8J3M uejnd p Apoq aij} jaAO puno^ ssunfui •iue||9ddB 9L|} tsuieBe aouapiAe siqBijej Aue peonppe }ou seq uoiinoasojd eqt inq 'SLDUOLU 6 sjeaA g tnoqe psi9]diuoo SBL| pue SQOZ-O 1.-9 souis Apoisno u! si iue||adde luasejd 8L|i qBnoqtie 4eqi stiiuqns }ue||8dde eqi Jo^ |esunoo psujesi •z •jauueiu piesajo^e eiii ui iuB]]sdde 9L|} psoue^ues 'g pepiAUOosei) M0|aq ijnoo psujeai 'seiijed 8L|} 01 Buuesq p Aiiunijoddo Buipjoye jeyy '9 •uoiteoiidiui es]ej pue souaoouui pspesid pue Luiq isuieSe Buueedde saoueisainojio at|i peiuep ai] LJOILIM ui 'o'd'-iQ sLll P £).£uoipas japun pspjooaj sem tue||9dde SL|I p tuoaieieis •sasssutim uestxis se AUELU SB peuiiuexe sequoiinoesojd 9L|) 'pasnooe eq) ^o DinB a^ 9Aojd 01 jspjo u| •s •]BU) JQ^ J9JSUEJ} uo eseo 8L|( paAieosj jndiey '('Q'i'j) eBpnp suoissag leuoitippv ^\, peujeei ajeqM 0104 'jndiey 'suoissag ^o ijnoQ eqi 01 sseo aqi pauiiuLUOoujni ui oqM jndiey 'sse|3 isjij eieJ)siBe|/\| leioipnr aqi sjo^aq psiij.seM lesys e6jeL|3 uo!te6!iS9Aui p uoiieidaioo jeye pue 'o'd'-iQSMt io 1.91. uoipeg jepun papjooej ejem sssssutm eqijo siuQiue^eis '61.-d 'S Sl."d'sx3 sp!A pejedajd ejaM sdeu pds 'Z-d'x3 3P!A ps-isAooej sjeM iios psuieispooiq )g |ios uie|d '9-d'x3 9P!A pssnooe eqt LUOJ^ pezies SBM 9J!U» '9-d'x3 SP'A psziss SJOM ssqiop psuieis pooig 'Apoq jey JSAO punoj SBM punoM pQsiou! euo Buipnioui seunfu! SAIJ. pue oi.-d'x3 SP!A (9-AAd) iqsuEAejpueqo '»'g 'JG ^q peuiiuexe os]e SBM 9L|S •seynfu] psuieisns OS]B (l.-/v\d) xuinossojd eqi p|iqo jeq BUIAGS ^0 3011} eqi iv 'puno^ SBM jsBuy SIPPILU iq6u ^o dii JSAO 'LUO g'o x 'iuo i, p uoi.sejqe euo '§ U0169J lejodiuai JSAO deep enssi} x 'LUO \. x 'siuo g p punoM paspui suo pue '8-d'x3 spi.A (8-Md) i^sueABJpueqo •>rg 'JQ ^q psuiLUBxe sem eL| pue UOIlBUILUBXe IBOIpSLU JO^ }U9S SBM uBjnd P|IL|O psBe s-iesA jnoj 'OZ-d'x3 SplA pSJQlSlBSJ SBM 'y'l'd 'ZI.-d'X3 P siseq eqi uo pue zi.-d'x3 SPJA pepjooej SBM iqsiiBN iieqea •e3i|0ci eiii 0} petELUiiui SBM jeyeLU 941 •Aeme UEJ pesnooe eqi 'jeyesjeqi 'pueq jaAo OS|B pue uoiBaj lejodujet JOAO Q^\u}\ L)I!M piiqo sqi p9t|nesse iue||edde 8L|i 'pliqo 3L|l enosej oi peui Asqi U9L|A/\ 'PII.LIO JSL) L|II 6uo|e luepioui ^o eoeid 9i|} 9AE3| 0} p9]4 iue|]adde SL]! uodnejsLjM suieo suosjsd ja^o pue xuinoasojd sqi p pueqsnH 'P]!L|O pe6e sjeeA jno^ jaq ]]]>| IIIM eL| }BL|I peusieejqt pue 'JOL) pe}|nesse pue a^u>| qfiM >|oeq SLUBO uieGe iue||3ddB 8t|i •AeMe UEJ iue||9dde 341 '.joqo -IOIJQ, inoqs pue adeose 0} paui aqs ueqm nature, therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of the I.P.C. was not sustainable. Statement of the prosecutrix does notinspire eonfidence. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State/ respondent supported the judgment and submitted that statements of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and other witnesses are sufficient for drawing inference against the appellant. The Court below has rightly convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 9. In order to appreciate the contentions pf the parties, 1 have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. The present appellant has been convicted under Sections 354 & 324 of the I.P.C. for using criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of a woman (the prosecutrix PW- 1) and for voluntarily causing hurt by sharp edged weapon, respectively, andalso underSection 326 ofthe I.P.C. for voluntarilycausing grievous hurt by sharp edged weapon to Puran. lO.The prosecutrix (PW-1) has deposed that when she came to her house after fetching \water, she found the appellant inside the room, the appellant tried to lay down her by holding her on which she cried 'Chor Chor'whereupontheaccused fled awayfrom the house and again came with knife, at that time, her son Puran was present in the lawn, the appellant took her son and told that he will assault him, she chased the appellant to save her child, persons of the vicinity collected, she cried to save and rescue herchild, the accused assaulted Puran with knife over his head and he attacked her also over her hand, elbow & right palm. She has specifically deposed that the accused has entered the house to commit rape on her. She lodged the report, she & her son were examined by the doctor and they were shifted to the hospital. Clothes were seized. ll.Santram (PW-2), husband of the prosecutrix & father of Puran, has deposed that he has seen injury over the head of his son and also the injuries upon her wife. The prosecution has declared him hostile, but he has not fully supported the case ofthe prosecution. 12. Harikishan (PW-3), who was present at the time of incident, has Gorroborated the statement ofthe prosecutrix (PW-1). Gulab (PW-4) has also corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix. Dr. B.K. Chandravanshi (PW-8) has deposed that he has examined Puran & the 'L-.. wM ^':??.:"' ,<ft' prosecutrix (PW-1) vide Exs.P-8 & P-10, respectively, and found the aforesaid injuries. In his cross-examination he has deposed the injuries found over the head of Puran were not possible to be caused by fall. 13. Defenee has cross-examined the prosecutrix (PW-1) in detail, but it has not been able to elicit anything in her cross-examination to discredit her evidence. Gulab (PW-4) has also been cross-examined by defence, but defence has not been able to elicit anything in his cross-examination also to discredit his testimony. Gulab is eyewitness to the incident and he has seen the incident. Evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) & Gulab (PW- 4) supported by medical evidence and the promptly lodged report are sufficient for drawing inferenee that the appellant has caused injuries over the head of Puran, and also caught hold of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and caused injuries to her by knife. l4.Afterappreciating the evidence available on record, the Court below has convicted & sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner. According to the e'vidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), when she came back to her house and when she was alone, she found the accused inside her house, the accused caught hold of her and tried to lay her down. This shows the intention of the accused and use of criminal force to outrage the modesty of a woman. Injuries found over the body of the prosecutrix (PW-1) & Puran caused by sharp edged object show his voluntary act of causing hurt. As regards the nature of injury found over the head of Puran,injury was on vital part i.e. head and size of injury was 5 cms. x 1 cm. up to tissue deep, therefore, the said injury is grievous in nature. 15. As per Section 320 Eighthly of the I.P.C. any hurt which endangers life is designated as "grievous". l6.The Courtbelow has rightly convicted the appellant as aforementioned and conviction of the appellant under Sections 354, 324 & 326 of the I.P.C. is sustainable under the law. l7.As regards the question of sentenceof the appellant, admittedly the present appellant is in custody since 6-10-2005 and has completed 3 years 9 months. Injury found over the head of Puran was 5 cms. x 1 cm. up to tissue deep, no bone was cut or fractured, although the injury was dangerous, but taking into consideration the dimension and the circumstances, sentence of 3 years 9 months already undergone for offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C. is sufficient. ^ »,r /<" ar 'na 5 . 18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction & sentences of the appellant under Sections354 & 324 of the I.P.C. are maintained. Conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of the I.P.C. is also maintained. However, sentence of 5 years R.l. & fine of Rs.500/-, in default further R.l. for 3 months imposed upon the appellant under Section 326 of the I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 3 years 9 months (since 6-10-2005 till today) & fine of Rs.500/- withdefault stipulation. -_——=^__- Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^