n ‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF I JUDICATURE‘AT,BILASPt1R , Smgle Beach CRIMINAL APPEAL NO [yz’ /2006 l) Manjhl Mandav1 E , S/o Late WV v Banshlr i? ‘ Lal aged about 35 years CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SE ION 37 I: i OE CRIMINAL PRoCEDURE, _ _ ‘ f .2) Budharu MandaVJ. l Late. anshi‘Lal; ‘, ' Aged about 3O years 3) Dara allas Darar : ' Mandavi’ V S/o\k/ Madan Mandav1 Aged about 25 years 4z) Vljay Kumar S/o / ”c 22 years All R/o Nayapara ‘ Gokulpur Ward . ’J‘ Dhamtar1 x Dlstrlct—'g "Dhamtar1 (CG) . ' ‘V yERstis,»,"" ‘RE%§£NDENT __F.,_____ State of i §_ g Chhattlsgarh , ‘Through i \ _ Dlstrlct g Maglstrate 'E Dhamtari _ District’ ,. , Dhamtar1 V j, H fiL ‘I‘GHpcoiu RT. 6F:CHH‘ATTIisIGAR"H.AB ‘ (‘Hon‘M‘r Justicé Priti‘n‘ke‘r biwa‘kér . _ i, CrImInalAppeaINo 745 of 2006 ELkANTS " H _ ManJhI MandaVI and othe ERSUS f P rs V ON.D.ENT ‘ I V ' State-ofChattisgarh“ 'fifR SP Shh HS ‘Ahluwaha counsel for the appeliants Smt Smlta Ghal PL for the respondent/State ” §IMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE . L~ ’ I CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ? _ ‘ ‘ J UDG ME NT _ 53, - I. ’ (25.02.2011) i, I-T‘his a‘lp’ée‘al is directed against the judgment and"ord 7,92006 passed by Addltlonal SeSSIons Judge Dhamtarl ssmns Tnal No 167/2005 conVIctIng the accused/' S a [der Sections 307 and 452 IPC and sentencmg each ofl‘them t onment for flve years and pay fine of Rs 1 .u/s_307 and rigorous Imprisonment for one year With flne of Rs /s 452 IPC plus default stlpulat|ons Case of the prosecution In brief ls that on 15 11 2004 at about ‘ 8/8 3O p m accused/appellants along w1th some other persons h ssaulted Makhan Netam (PW—1) causrng eight Injuries to hl -L‘Ex P 1 was lodged on the same day at about 9 p m and bas hat offences underSectrons 365 452 147 148 149 325 3 d 506 B IPC were regrstered against the accused/appellant I herein and 8 other persons After Investlgatton challan was flled b a 7 " e‘pcnce (an 30.12.2004 forthe offences under sectianss‘ssgds 47 148 149 325 323 506 B 294 and 307IPC ‘ " I ‘ .R ed t 23 [ s y H z 1 "_3;_1 So as to hold the accused persons guHty, prosecution h mlned 19 Witnesses In support of Its case Statements of ,, l O, A > I efz’aa'ted m U o 0 1 r ad ,ga m a a th ,2— against them and pleaded their innocence and false impication in the case. This apart, five persons namely Shiv Nath. Sahu (DW-1), Tularam (DW—2), Chandra Kumar (DW—3), Gangu Mandavi (DW—4) and Mahesh Sonkur (DW-5) have also been examined by th defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted all the accused perSons including the appellants herein of the charge under Section 365 IPC. Except the appellants in this case, other accused persons have been acquitted‘of the charges under sections 307 and 153 IPC and that except accused Lali Bai, Kanti Bai, Basanti Bai, Dukhvantin‘Bai, other accused persons including the appellant herein havealso been acquitted of the charge u/s 323 IPC. Though .the‘present appellants have been acquitted of the other offences, they have beeh convicted under Sections 307 and 452 IPC. i 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materal available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the accused/appellants have been falsely implicated because of the village politics and since there was no intention on their part to kill the victim Makhan Tekam (PW-1), their conviction under section 307 IPC is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that looking to the manner in which victim Makhan Tekam (PW-1) has been brutally assaulted by the accused/appellants causing as many as eight injuries to him out of which, injury No.8 has been opined to be grievous in nature by Dr. D.S. Deo (PW—1 1) who has stated that had timely medical treatment not been provided, it could have been dangerous to life. He submits that Dr. lqbal Parvej (PW-16) has also stated about the injuries being grievous in nature. 8. Victim namely Makhan Netam (PW—1) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident he was brutally assaulted by the accused/appellants. According to him, accused/appellant No.1 Manjhi Mandavi was-having sword, accused/appellant No.2 Budharu l e s ~g, Mandavi was having spade, accused/appellant No.3 Dara alias Dara Mandavi was having iron rod and accused/appellant Vijay Kumar was having wooden’piank. First injury, according to him, was caused in his hand followed by several injuries on other parts of his body as a result of which his Ieft hand got fractured. In cross examination also this witness stood firm to what has been stated by him in the examination-in-chief. Makhini Bai (PW-2) — the sister of Makhan Netam (PW-1) is one of the eyewitnesses to the incident and she has duly supported‘the statement made by victim Makhan Netam (PW-1). Bisahin Bai (PW-3), Ku. Sharda Netam (PW-4) and Prémial Meenpal (PW-6) are also the eyewitnesses to the incident and they have also supported the case of the prosecution. Anil Kumar Patel jPW—5) is the witness to the seizure of plain & blood stained earth ‘and spade made under EX. P-4 and P-5 who has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Savitri Bai (PW-7) - the wife of the victim Makhan Netam (PW-1) is yet another eyewitness to the incident and she too has supported the case of the prosecution. Pannalal (PW-8) is thié witness who reduced to writing the report Ex. P—1 made by the victim (PW-1). Saroj Bai (PW-9) and Ram Kumar (PW—10) are the neighbours of the victim have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. Dr. D.S. Deo (PW-11) who had medically examined the victim (PW-1) and given his report Ex. P-5A describing the injuries sustained by him which are as unden i) Lacerated wound in the parietal region of head in the size of 3 x 1.5 x 1.5" ii) Lacerated wound in the parietal region of head in the size of2.5 x .5 x .5" iii) Bruise on left shoulder in the size of 5 x .75” iv) Bruise on Ieft shoulder in the size of 4 x 2" v) Bruise on right arm in the size of 3 x .75” vi) Bruise on right arm in the size of 3 x .75" vii) Bruise on right arm in the size of 6 x .75” viii) Fracture in the left hand with swelling, not able to move. Allthese injuries have been opined to have been caused with hard and blunt object and out of which injury No.8 was of grievous nature. .__L/_ Thi itne l edically examined Bih Bai (PW-) a gave his red x. P-6A and noticed pain and swelling in e left leg and abraio i h left'hand. He h als medical i Ku. » hada Netam (PW—4 and iven his rert x. P-A and noticed ur inis on her body. Ram hagat Penkra (-12) i the ri who hd epard the ot ap Ex. P-2. Kesh ar eepa (P1A) is t wies to the seizure m uner Ex. P- 16 to E. -1 and moranda Ex. P—11 t Ex. P-15 hs not ported the ce exsetion and has en dlred I hst rshottam -) is t witness to seizre me under ‘E P-27 has also t upported the case of he ocution and has b ded osti. Jageshwar (PW-14) is e its to the mdu'm EX. P-28 and seizure made und Ex. P-9 hs also not suorte th ce of the osecution and hs bee decled hole. Kailash Kumar is the witness f spot map Ex. P-3 and seiur mad nder Ex. P and P-5 and he too ha not pported te se of te proseutiOn nd has en declad hostile. D. Ial arwej W—16) who was emrgeny duty in the hositl nd xained the viim (PW—1) and Savitri ai (PW-7) has stted that X- ay vic Makhan (P-1) w taken a sral ones ere cc n n th ctm s ce sa od E x 1 z d x. P-16 to Ex. P-20 has also not supported the se of- the rosecution ad has een decled hostil. Sohan Lal w (W- the witss mmorandum Ex. P-18 has lso nt suorted t c of he psecuti. Assistant ub Ispector - .. Shu (P d sp c s wss aso m sain 3 nd po E hr sn n er as o ly examned Sr ) g po E 7 fo jure B PW s Patwa a pre sp m Kum Mnl W-2 he tns ade d x P2 em o a sup as of thprocu be eca oile. Pu (PW13 he u ad i no s t prse een cla’re hle th wnes Qnoran er 2 a ppd e as pr a n ar sti o ze e u -4 s su h ca h c a be re r qb P (P on ec pa a em ct B a r of tim W as nd eve b w found to be fractured. Aording to this witness, iternal injury i the brain of e vii wa notid by him. Kanhirm (PW—17) - the ’ witness of memrana x. P-13 to E. P-5 and seiure made uner E ca p n b ar e Kanar P 18) — ne of e a o pp he ase t roon S n RK a W-J9) is the investigating officer who has uly uported the ase of the prosecution. 9. Having thus closely seen the material available on record particularlythe evidence of the injured witness Makhan (PW-1), his sister Makhini Bai — the eyewitness'to the incident, other eyewitnesses namely Bisahnbai (PW-3), Ku. Sharda Netam (PW-4), Premlal (PW-6), injured witness Sabitri Baix(PW-7) and Dr. D.S. Deo (PW-11) who had medically examined the victim (PW-1) and other injured persons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the -f, appellants were having prior intention to cause such injuries to the ,victim which would ultimately result in his death. Dr. D.S. Deo (PW- 11) has categorically stated in his evidence that out of the injuries sustained by the victim (PW-1), injury No.8 was grievous in nature and as its bone was‘fractured, his left hand was not able to move. Court below appears to have taken a very genuine approach in recording its findings by the judgment impugned and this Court is also in 'full agreement with the same. 10. Accordingly, the appealbeing without substance is liable to be gismissed and is dismissed as such. Judgment is hereby maintained. As appellants are already in jail, no order regarding their surrender etc. is required to be passed. § Sdl- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ‘