CFOOOOOS754'i (L \> IHTHE HIGH COURT O? tiADHYA PE^DBSH &! JABALPU&. CRIMISJAL APPEAL No. )±>^tof 1994. \^ APPELLANTS l.-Santosh @ Maana SGQ of Seria Saryawansbi, aged 21 year^s, 2.~ Sbriram @ peria S/o Buddhu Suryawanshi, aged 4,5 ysars. Bo-th cul-tivators and resident of vlllage Chichirada, Pollce $€ation Chakarbhata, Bistrict-Bilaspur. / / •Versus- !' 1. State o£ M.P. / RESPONDSNT CRIMIH&L &PPEAL UNDER SECTIOH 374(2) OF THE CRIHIHAI, PROCBDURE E CODE. ~ ~~ ^ • ,f ./^- ^ —— W13 .s'^ns1 mGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1520 of 1994 APPELLANTS VERSUS RESPONDENT Santosh @ Murma and another State ofMadhya Pradesh Shri Kamal Pandey, counsel for the appellants. Shri Pravin Das, Dy. G.A. for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 f2) QF THE CDDE OF CREMINAL PROCEDIJRE. JUDGMENT (06.01.2011) The present appeaj arises Qut of the judgraent and order dated 26.10.1994 passed by 7 Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 1992 convictmg the aGCUsed/appeUants uhder section 307 read with section 34 of IPC and sentencing each of fhem to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years. 2. Facts ofthe case in brief are that on 26.08.1991 FIR (Ex.P-2) was lodged by the complainant Rishi Kuar (PW-2) alleging in it that OB fhat day at about 6.30 p.m. when he was retuming home from the village pond along with Munna (PW-1) on bicycle, there arose a minor dispute betweeB'him and the accused/appellant No.l'Sahtosh as a result of which all the fhr^e accused persons namely Santosh, Shriram and Tukaram assault^d him with rod. Thereafter on the mstigation of appellant No.2 Shriram, accused/^pellant No.l Santosh stabbed hiifl four times on:iiis stomach as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. After investigation challan was filed by the police on .05,11.1991 agaiast the three accused persons namelySantosh, Shriram and Tukaram. • 'ff i- A. ••-i.&;. "ss» 't ^. •^^1^-.. '•^.SS'22". ^!y^^ ^.-^ssSf' -i- 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution Bas examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under section 313 ofthe Code of Crimmal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against thein and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted a&d sentenced the appellant No.l Santosh & appellant No.2 Shriram for the offence as mentioned above whereas Tukaram has been acquitted. 5. Contention of fhe counsel for the appellant is that fhe incident took place all of a sudden on account of minor dispute and that too when the accused persons were provoked by the complaihant. He subinits that it was the complamant who fu-st kicked the appellant No.l Santosh and thereafter alsb slapped him, therefore, in fhe facts and circumstances; at best the offence would fall under Section 335 of IPC. He further submits that the sole eye witiiess namely Muna (PW-1) has not supported 'the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. He further submits that ifthe conviction of the appellant under Section 307 ofIPCis mamtained, at least the sentence part may be reduced because the appellant No.2 is now aged about 65 years whereas the appellant No.l Santosh is a middle aged person havmg family responsibilities. 6. Supporting the impugnedjudgment it has been argued by the State counsel that the manner in which the complamant was assaulted speaks:j everything. He submits that three stab injuries have been found on thej stomach of/die complainant for which the complainant was operated anc hospitalized for about 26 days. He further subinits that the Dr. S.S.Duhey (PW-8) has .opined that all the injuries susfamed by the complaulant were grievous m nature aiid those injuries can be caused by 'the knife seized &om fhe possession of the accused/appellaBt No.l,; • 'Saittosh. ,H& farther submifs that there is absohrtely no evidence,.oii;^ ^record to. show that in any maimer the accused/appellants were prOVQlced.^ ; by the comptainant and there&re the present case would not fSirinlder . . t&Stll •qp^:,," ;^?2^'''' section 335 of IPC. He fijrther submits that the appellants do not deserve any sympathy even on sentence part because they have bratally assaulted the complainant. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and pemsed the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 8. Munna (PW-1)- the sole eyewitness has thougll stated that there was some quarrel between the accused persons and the complamant but later on has been declared hostile. Rishi Kiunar (PW-2)- the Gomplamant has stated that when he was retuming to his village along wifh Munna (PW-1) on bicycle, the accused persons met him near village pond and were starriag at him. Thereafter the appellant No.l Santosh caught hold his shirt and started abusmg him. He further stated that when afterkickmg Santpsh he was tiying to go back, all the accused persons who were aimed with rods assaulted him as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter accused Shriram and Santosh sat on his chest and pressed the same and at that time the accused Shriram @ Sriya asked the dther accusedSantosh to assault the complainant by knife and then the accused Santosh gave him various knife blows as a result of which he started bleedmg and his intestine came out from his stomach. He has stated that fhinking him died the accused persons left huh and then he lodged the report Ex.P-2 before the police station. He has further stated that he was operated and remained in the hospital for about 26 days. In cross-examinafion he has stated'that he sustained thi-ee kaife injuries on his/Stomach, one on his hip and the others on the ofher parts of his body.; Radheshyam (PW-3), Meghnad (PW-5), Ram Kumar '~-» Dubey (PW-11) and Sruresh Dubey (PW-12) have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. Itwari Ram (PW-4) - father of the complainant has stated that upon receivmg infomiation about fhe assault on his son when he was going to the spot, he saw the Yjllagers bnngmg his son on a bicycle and his son told him about the 'assault cause(i4>y~the accused persons and thereafter he took his soh to ^^ST^E 1 •'• l,r -4-- the hospital. Sitaram (PW-6) is the Patwari of the village who had prepared the spotmap. Dr. S.S. Dubey (PW-8) who had examined the complainant has given his report Ex. P-6 and has found the following injuries:- — 1) IAV 3 X 2 cmon right a&d lower part ofthe abdomen. 2) I/W 1X1 cm on the upper right portion offheabdomen. 3) I/W 1 X lcm on the upper right portion. 4) Contusion 6 X 3 cmon the right thigh He has further stated fhat the injuryNos. 1, 2 & 3 sustainedby the complamant can be caused by knife and injury No.4can be caused by rod and all the mjuries were grievous in nature. Though m the cross- examination this witness has stated that the mjuries sustained by the complainant could not have resulted his death and were simple in nature but this statement is apparently contradictory to his previous statement and from the medical report given by him. Dr. Anm Balaru(PW-9) who had performed the operation ofthe complainant has stated that his both mtestineswere mptured and had incised wound and the same was treated by him. He has also opined that had the complainant not been given medical treatment in time, he would have died. D. K. Netam (PW-13) - the Investigatmg Officer has supported the prosecution case. 9. Considering the entire evidence as adduced by the prosecution, it is apparent that the complainant Rishi Kumar was bmtally assaulted by the accused Santosh and Shriram and both the accused/appellants first saton the'-chest ofthe complamant and then at the.instigation of appellant No.2 Shriram, fhe appeUant No.l Santosh gave various knife blows to the complamant/ Complainant Rishi Kumar was fortunate enough that he cduld survive as prompt medlcal to-eatment was given to him. 'IQ. Inview of fhe aforesaid discussions this Court is of the opmion that the conviction ofthe appellant under section 307 IPC isjustand proper and no interference therewith is called for. Thus, the conviGtion {^ifoftlieimpugnedjudgmentismaintamed. . . I^Kfe^ 11. So far as the sentence part of the unpugned judgmeiit is concemed, as fhe incident is said to have takea place about 20 years back, that the appellant No.2 is aged about 65 years and the appellaiit No.l is also a middle age person and ithas been mforr&ed to this Gourt by the counsel for the appellants that the relations befween the complainant and the accused persons have again become cordial,this Court is ofthe opinion that it would be in the interest ofjustice toreduce the sentence imposed on the acGused/appellants to the period already undergone by awarding some reasonable compensation to the complainant as per the provisions of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part ofthe impugned judgment is maintained but the sentence imposed on the accused/appellants is reduced to fhe period already undergone by them. The appellants are'directed to pay a compensation ofRs. 5,000 each to the complainant withm a period ofthree months from fhe date ofreceipt of copy of this order. Failure to pay compensation within the time stipulated shall make the appellants liable to undergo rigorous imprisontnent for six months. Order accordingly. ~ Pritinker Biwgfeer Judge •*=^ 1