HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR APPELLANT: (In Jail) RESPONDENT: Criminal Appeal No.363 of 2005 Shiv Charan Sahu, aged 43 years, S/o Kanwal Singh Sahu, R/o Village Taragondi, P.S. Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) ofthe CodeofCriminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. D.N. Prajapati, counsel for theappellant. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate forthe State/respondent. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORALJUDGMRNT (28-7-2009) " l. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction &order of sentence dated 13-4-2005 passed by the AdditiQnal Sessions Judge^ Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No.339/2003 whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commissionof offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years & pay fine of Rs.200/-,in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month. 2. Judgment of conviction & order of sentence are challenged on the ground that without any iota of evidence the Court below has convicted& sentenced the appellant. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26-7-2003 at Village Tipani GhatkharVillage Tarragondi, Distt. Dhamtari injured Maniram (PW-2) was present in his field where the present accused came and aftersome altercation assaulted the injured with stick, when the injured fell down, the accused again assaultedover his face. The injured became unconscious. Shobhit, his wife and other persons who were working in the nearby fields shifted the injured to the hospjtal. Dehati Nalishi was lodged by Hemnarayan (PW-3) vide Ex.P-2. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-3. Stick, umbrella, broken piece of stick, blood stained & plain soil were recovered from the^spot vide Ex.P-4. Blood stained cloth was seized vide Ex.P-5. BIood stained clothes of the accused were also seized vide Ex.P-6. The accused made disclosure statement of the wooden stick vide Ex.P-8 and the same was recovered vide Ex.P-7 at his instance. Spotmap was prepared by the Patwari vide Ex.P-9. The injured was examjned by the doctor and seven injuries were found over upper lip, fore head, scalp, face & chin, and the eyes were black. The injured was unconscious and was omitting. Report of thedoctor is Ex.P-llA. Statement of the injured was recorded in the hospital vide Ex.P-10. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Secteton 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the ChJefJudiciat Magistrate, Dhamtari, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Dhamtari, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, received thecase on transfer for trial. 4.1norderto prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of theappellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against hjmand pleaded innocence &false implication. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as also the record of the Court below. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that defence is not disputing the injuries found over the body of the injured, however, defence is disputing that the injuries found over the body of the injured were not caused by the accused. The appellant is in custody since 13-4-2005 and he was also in custody from 27-7-2003 to 1-9- 2003. Sentence awarded to the appellant is excessive. 7. On fehe other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalfofthe State/ respondent supported the judgment. 8. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, I have examined the statements of the witnesses. Injuries found over the body of the injured have not been disputed by defence. the injuries were established by the evidence of Maniram (PW-2), Hemnarayan (PW-3), Kisun (PW-4), Dr. S.K. Chaterjee (PW-14) & the report Ex.P- 11A in which seven injuries were found over the body of the injured '^. s^? IN^ G h-» Soma out of which the injuries over fore head & scalp were grievousin nature. The injured was unconscious. 9. As regards the question of complicity of the appellant in the crime in queStjon, injured Maniram (PW-2) has deposed that he was assaulted by theaccused when he was working in his field. He has been cross-examined by defence at length. there are some discrepancies in his evidence and also the evidence of other witnesses. Substantially the statement of the injured is not supported by other witnesses. The prosecution has turned them hostile. The prosecution has not examined Shobhit & his wife. Corroboration of the statement of the injured from independent sources is not a rule oflaw, but is a rule of caution andprudence. lO.Thejnaxim nfalsus in uno falsus in omnibus" cannot be mechanically applied in India. If one part of the statement of witnesses is found false and untrue that part should be separated and reliance can be placed on other part. ll.Evjdence of injured Maniram (PW-2) is sufficient to draw inference that the appellant has caused injuries on the body of Maniram. Conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of the injured supported by medicalevidence. Conviction ofthe appellant is sustainable underthe law. l2.As regardsthe question of sentence, seven injuries were found over fore head, face, scalp & chin of the injured and the doctor has opined thattwo jnjuries were grievous innature. However, no bone injury was found. Taking into consideration the fact that the dispute arose in field relating to water and nature of injuries,sentence imposed upon the appellant requires reconsideration. l3.Consequently, the appeal is partty allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is maintained, however sentence of R.I. for seven years & fins of Rs.200/- are reduced to sentence of R.I. for five years & fine of Rs.200/-, in default additional R.I.dForone month. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge