HIGH, COURT OF OlmTTISGARH, BILASPUR, Criminal _ppea.l No.992 of 2008 . APPELLANT: Randhu‘ Smgh, S/o Pahalvan (In Jail) Smgh aged about 24 years Residence at Masaldand Rumga, Chouki Kotmi, Police 'Chouki Kotami Kala, PS Pendra‘, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus The State of Chhattlsgarh Through Pohce Stauon Pendra, Dlstt B11aspur(C G) {Criminal appeal under Secuon 374 (2) of the Code of Cn‘minal Procedure, 1973} RESPONDENT: Present: Mr Yogendra Chaturvedi counsel for the appellant Mr Akhll Mlshra, Deputy Govt Advocate for the State/ ' respondent Sin$e Bench. Hon’ble Mr. IT.P. Sh ' a. J‘ ORAL .mDGMEM (3 7 2009) ' By th1s appeal the appellant has challenged legality & propriety of ’ the Judgment of conv1ct10n & order of sentence dated 1 1 1 1 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road in Sessions Trial No.26/2008, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C., sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four years & pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of nne to further undergo RI. for six months. . Judgment is challenged on the ground that without any material available on record, the Court below has convicted 85 sentenced the appellant and thereby committed illegality. . Case of the prosecution; in brief, is that on 15-1-2008 at about 4 4 p.m. the appellant came towards the shop Where Uttam Singh (PW— 1) (injured) was sitting and after some unusual talks the appellant assaulted Uttam Singh with betel axe (Farsa) over his head & hand, and finally little finger of left hand was amputated ‘ as a result of the injury caused by the appellant. F.I.R. was 'l/‘l @ lodged on the same day vide Ex.P- 1, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-2 and blood stained cloths were seized r&’om the injured vide EXP-3. Discloser statement of the appellant under Section 27 of the IndianEvidence Act was recorded on 16—1-2008 vide EXP—6 and at the instance of his statement, one betel axe was seized videExVP—7. "The injured was examined by Dr. D._S. Paikra (PW- 10) who noticed foHowing four injuries: — (i) Incised wound of 5 ems. x 0.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. over left side of face; (ii) Incised' Wound of 4 ems. _x 0.5 cm. x 0.8 cm. over forehead; (iii)lncised wound of 2.5 ems. x 0.5 om. x 0.5 cm. over palm of left hand & (iv)Incised wound (amputated) of 1.5 cms. x 1.5 cms. x 1.5 cms. Little finger amputated off at proximal joint of metacarpal of leit hand. . After completion of investigation, charge sheet was medbefore the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, tried the case. . In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 Witnesses. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. The appellant also examined Aarti @ Rajkumari (DW— 1) who has deposed that when she was working in the kitchen garden, the injured came to her and caught hold of her hand, when she resisted, the injured assaulted her with the handle of axe whereuponshe‘ cried for help and after hearing her cries, her brother-in-law Golu came and by the time Golu reached there, the injured ran away. She has not stated anything relating to the commission of the aforesaid oh‘ence. . After ah‘ording opportunity of hearing, Court below has convicted & sentenced the’appellant in the aforesaid manner. . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugied judgment as also the record of the trial Conn. 8f Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the outset, he is not dispuh'ng conviction of the appellant and assailjng sentence awarded to him by the Court below. He further submits that this is a case of partial amputation of little finger of left hand and sentence of R.I. for four years is imposed upon the appellant which is not in consonance with the a‘ct attributed to the appellant. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent supports the judgment and submits that the Court below has rightly convicted & sentenced the appellant for commission of the crime in question. 10.1nju1ies caused {by the appellant to injured Uttam Singh and amputation of little finger of left hand of the injured as a result of such injuries are not disputed by the appellant, otherwise also established by the evidence of Utta'm Singh (PW- 1), Shiv Prasad (PW-2),r. Dilip ingh Paih‘a (P 0), promptly lodg F.LR. Ex.P—1 and medical report x.P- 12. The ourt elow ha tightly convicted te appellant nde Sectio 326 of the I.P.C. and has not committed any illeglity in convicting him. .s regards the questio of senten, learned Additional Sessions Judge has sentenced the appellant to ndergo R.I. for four years 85 pay‘fme of Rs.500/-. This is a case of partil utau'on of little finge o lef hand of injured Uam Singh an o fatal or dangerus injury wa sed by the pellant. t appears h'om th evidce of Utta Singh (PW-1 tht firstly Utta in aulted the appe y some Bemm stick whep the appellant aslted m with betel axe. 12.T int considration the mitigating iumstances, gvity of offence d the fashion in which the injuries have been causd, sentence imposed uon the appellan is excessive and not in consoance with the act attribute to the apellant. Sentence requires reConsideration. 3.Cnsequently, th appeal is partly allowe. Conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of he I.P.C. is maintained, however, sentence of 4 years R.I. & fme of Rs.50/ is reduce to the period already undergone by the appellant i.e. since 17- 1—2008 till ‘D S W- 1 ed E C b s h ur n a ’A n ce u a amp r f t tt d n o s cau ap I e en m ) a m Sgh ass llant b sh reuon sau hi aking o e crc ra an e p t n d p 1o e d t 0— d @‘ today (about more than 1 year 5 months) & mle of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fme to further R.I. for one year. The fine amount so deposited by the appellant shall be disbursed to injured Uttam Singh as compensation.