WW, m, mg? iEm m ”Mai 200 W W (WW) mmm WW wW aia‘m‘aném 1 x 1 V l SB: HON'BLE 5 CRAPPE APPLICANTs i” " ‘ § RE590NDENT 26.07.2007 Shri H.5.Pa+el’ counsel 5hri Pradeep Singh, Heard. RI DHIRENDRA MISHRA J. L NO. 562 OF 1998 Pujeri La! 5/o. Tukumm Dhobi, 42 years. Sudhumm 5/0. Tukumm Dhobi, 30 years. Sujan 5/0. Tukumm Dhobi, years Ingaima'ri’Bai Wd./e. Tuku'mm‘ aged 60 years 5. Kumari W/o. Pujerilal Dhobi, years m. 5i+iya Bai @ Kirhin W/o. Sujun aged 38 years '7’ Hir Bai @ Medkonhin W/o. Dhobi, aged 40 year's AH resided? of Village Bade P‘S. Dabham! Dis‘H'. Bilaspur Vis. The 51n1'e of Madhya Through PoHce Sm‘rion Dis'l'ricf Bilaspur MP now CG for 1'he appellan+s. PL. for 'H1e Sfafe. 1 \ ‘ i 3W“ m ............... ¥E 200 am m 0W) WWW 1§Qim %WW mmm ¢ ,1,_ The appellanfs have preferred fhis appeal under 5ecfion 374(2) of fhe Cr.P.C. againsf fhe passed in 5.T. No. 80/97 Judge, 5ak1'i, Dis'l'ricf Bila Rum under Secfioh 307 of :l sentenced him 'ro undergo RI for five 1f Rs. 2,5007- for each a'H’empf (fo‘l'al of Rs. 5,000/-), in defaul'r of paymenf of For one year for each defaulf and has also under Sec-Hon 148 of IPC and sen-fenced Rs. 1000/— each, in fhe evenf of defaulf ‘g years and 1'0 pay a fine l‘ ssenfence 19 years and fine fine 1'0 fur‘l’her undergo RI convicted ail 'ihe dppeilan'rs fhem wifh imposing fine of one year RI. jr Case of fhe prosecu‘r 12.00 hrs cow belonging 1'0 garden of complainanf Roop +ime accused persans came parfy and the quarrei sfai armed wifh ia'rhi and axe as judgment da'red _17”’ of February 1998 whereby The learned Addi'l'ion'al Sessions spur has convic‘red appellanf No.2 Sadhu IPC separafely for affemp'iing f0 murder i Mehffm: & Bhisham Bai an ion, in brief, is 'lha'l on 14.01.97 af abou‘f accused Pujeri was grazing in fhe kifchen ‘Sai, which was driven away by him. A‘l' fhaf fhere, sfar‘red abusing fhe complaina'nf 'fediwhereupon all fhe accused persuns .saulfed fhe complainanf parfy as a resulf of which Meh'Har and Bhjham Bai susfained grievous injuries. One Kali Rawaf and ofher villag .rs intervened. In fhe said incideni' aparf xmc—n WW,W,W m m» WW 200 WW (W) WWW WW§WW %aif%ma¢n%¥1 .A ~3— fr‘am Mehffar (P.W.-8) and Bhisham Bui (P.W.-9), Roop Sui (P.W.-5), Vidhya Bai (P.W.-10) (3: Dhul Sui (P.W.-13) had also susfuined injuries. Reporf was lodged by P.W.-5 Reap Sui in fhe police station Dhabm-u on The basis of which offené was regis+ered againsf \‘he uppellanfs under Secfions 147,148,149, 51,294,325 and 307 of 'H'Ie IPC. During invesfigafion, injured persas were sen'r for medical examinafion where Dr. N.P.Mishra, P‘W.- 9 examined Them. The injury reporf of Aieh'r'rar (PM/:8) is EXP—25 This wifness aiso sustained bony injury over his skull. Dr. 5. Cha'H rjee, who was examined as P.W.—7, has given his repor'l of EXP-19 ccording ‘ro which fraci'ure was found on fhe righf pariefal bone of M h'l'far. The injuw reporf of Bhisham Bai (P.W‘-9) is Ex; P-ZS wherea injury repor'i' of Vidhya Bai (P.W.-10) is EXP-26 and 'rha'r of Dhul Sal (P.W.-13) is EXP-27. Affer comple‘ling invesfigafion charge shee'l' was filed. Affer commif‘lal charge under Secfions 148 and 307 of 'ihe IPC and in +he alferna'l'ive under Sec‘l'ion 326 of fhe IPC was framec for causing injury upon Meh‘H'ar apar'l' from fhe charge under Sec'lions 324 (Xi 323 of ‘l’he IPC was also framed againsf all ‘rhe appellanfs. All fhe accused persons abjured fheir guilt Prosecution in order to establish the charge against the accused persons examined 119 witnesses. Statement of accused was y ‘Eu? \ I@ 13m 3W3“ a“ WW m WWW “q, WW§WW éwt’ia‘qaném J I ‘ \ recorded in which The accutsed/appellunfs denied fhe circumsfances appearing againS‘!’ in ”the prosecu‘finn case. The accused/appellanfs also exa ined one Jamuna Bai in Their defence. Learned counsel for, he appellants submits fha’r in The said incidenT accused persons Pu eri Lal, Kumari, Sadhu Ram, Heer Bai and i Soojan also susTained injuri s and on The reporT of Pujeri Lal offence injured prdsecufion wilnesses including hwo o‘iher“wi+nesses under Sec'l'ion 307,452,147,148 and 149 of The IPC. However, The Trial Cou has acquiTTed The complainanT parTy vide judgmenT daTecl 1.7% of F bruary 1998 passed in ST No. 80/97. Learned counsel for The apa llanTs submiTs ThaT The injuries susTained by The vicTim MehTTar and Bhisham Bai was noT sufficienT To cause Their deaTh in The ordinary course and P.W.—7 Dr. 5. ChaTerjee who has proved The bony injury porT of MehTTar has caTegorically sTaTed ThaT he is noT in a posiTion T opine aT This sTage ThaT The injury on The person of MehTTar was s ficienT To cause deaTh in The ordinary course of naTure. Evidence i available on record ThaT The complainanT and The accused parTies w re involved in physical scuffle and as a resiJlT of which They fell on ground and The docTor who has examined fhem has given The opinion Eu‘ i’ lhe injuries preseni' over ‘rhe head of ‘h WW, Wan—«5, W“ anew m (W) was registered againsf all % W m” VW 200 Them ' e a WW,W,W i am m 0mm) www‘hwm Wmm‘m 31mm Bhishum Bai and Meh‘Hur could. be caused due 'fo full over some poin'red sfone. If is fur er argued Thu? fhe complainnnf and The accused par‘fy had entered info a compromise in 'rhe lok adala‘r on 1'he basis of which offence u Sec‘iion 323 and 324 were compounded and The appellanTs faced T iai oniy under SecTion 148 and 307 of The IPC‘as These offences are noT compoundabie under SecTion 320(2) of The Cr.P.C. IT is also argued Th T There is no evidence available on record ThaT The accused persons were hospiTalized as a resulT of injuries susTained by Them and Th only evidence available on record is ThaT They had gone To disTricT ospiTal, Bilaspur for The purposes of X-ray and They reTurned from laspur afTer Three days and There is no evidence of hospiTalizaTio On The oTher hand i arned counsel for The STaTe has supporTed The judgmenT of The Trial a i I have heard counse for The parTies‘ P.W.‘-19 Dr. NP. shra has examined MehTTar and found incised wound in The size o 1"x 1/2 " x 1/2 " over righT parieTal region, incised wound on fronTal a a of righT parieTal region in The size of 2 ' 1/2" x 1/2"x 1/2 He has furTher opined ThaT possibiliTy of fracTure i i i 1 _ i . 51 i i 211- 200 n r i n i 33am, Wm, W VW m....u..m....m.: Wui 200 Wm (W) WW WW EWWEHWJ mmm beneu1'h injuries and has referréd for X-my. His vapor? is EXP-25. Similarly +his wi'mess has examined Bhishnm Bui an The same day and has found incised wound over ihe skuil in fhe size of 1 %" x 1/2" x 1/8". 5ince Bhisham Bai was Having sympi'oms of head injury she was ‘ {admiffed in ‘Hne hospii'ai and njury report of Bhisham Bai is EXP-29. P.W.—7 Dr. 5. Cha'H'er‘ee has examined 'l'he X-ray pla'i'es of 'rhe £skuli of Mehffar and he s stared ihaT Mehffar has suffered examinai'ion of skuii of Bhis am Bai no bony injun/ was found by “the i i i i i i iefal region. However, on fhe X-ray fracture on fhe righ'r p docfor. This wi'mess in par graph five of his deposi'iion has sfa'red Ithai' normaiiy such injuries an nof be caused due f0 fali on ground or stone however, in exception i cases such injury may be caused due +0 fan on me ground. Whereas P.w.-19 orNPMiéhF‘cghas admimd mm» in 1'he injury repor‘r of Ex. -Z5, he has not mentioned fhis fact that the injury present over the erson of Mehttar was sufficient to cause his death and has admitted at the injury present over him could be caused by fall over the poin ed stone. P.W.—8 Mehttar in p ragraph 12 of his deposition has stated that he did not know whe r crowd gathered after the incident. He has further admitted that at the time of incident and when others a WW,W, W Wm .‘r.w 200 amt m (W) WWIEfg‘aW $afm3ni¥1 WWW ,1, . was invoived in physicai scuffle witm 1'he were frying 1’0 szpar'a're he accused persons as a resulh )‘f whicF‘ he had fallen on The ground. has also depased 'Hm'r m *he Time of Bh isham Bui P.W.—9 ofher injured persons were assaulted by incident she uiong wifh ihe were hoiding lafhi and axe as a resuH of an fhe accused persons whc she had faiien unconscious. From fhe injuries susfained by her, sfafemen'l’ of fhe injurei i eye wi'rnesses and par'i'icularly ‘fhe s'ra'femeni’ of Bhisham Bai nd Meh‘hfar, parficipafion of fhe accused persons in 1he crime in que ion is established as fhe defence has no? been able 'l'o elicif anyl'hi g which makes ‘l'he sl'a'l'emenl’ of 1'hese wi'l’nesses unfrus‘l'wor'l'hy r unreliable. The only ques‘l'ion 'l'o be considered is as fo whe‘lh r 'l'he injuries sus'rained by Mehf‘lar and Bhisham Bai was of such a n fure which can lead fo fheir dea'l’h in fhe ordinary course in fhe abse ce of any freafmenf and whe'lher accused appellanf No.2 Sadhu Ram ave ‘l'he blow' wi‘ih an infenfion fa cause deafh of +hese fwo persons. From fhe evidence f doc‘ror fhough if is established 'l’hai' Meh‘Har susfained one bo y injury overrigh‘l' pariefal region buf fances in which This offence Took place if is very difficulf ‘lo infer fh mofive of accused Sadhu Ram 'lhaf he in looking fo 'l'he overall circu 5 XIsHC—78 mm (W) WWW wwwiwm $Wm ‘- fucf gave 'rhe bfow +0 bo'rh an infen‘fian +0 cause ‘Pneir available on record I do no‘li find *fha'r These Two wifnesses‘ were given lion as There is no document available on Ni'l'nesses received frea‘i’men'l' as indoor d head “rickef has no‘r been adduced in fhe -8" 'i‘he injured Mehf‘far' and Bhishum Bai wifh deu‘i’h. Even ofheFwise from “H12 evidence freaTmen'f affer hospifaliic record fha'r fhe injured 1 pa‘rien‘r in The hospital as be evidence. In iiie ligh1' of 'l'l'ie af opinion fhai' 'l’l'ie Cour'l' bell No.2 5adhu Ram guil‘fy of affempfing 'l'o murder Meh ar and Bhisham Bai and 'l'he offence of fhe appellan'i" Sadhu Ram fa ls under Section 325 of 'H‘Ie IPC as he has caused grievous hur'l' 1'o P. In fhe resul'l', fhe Sujan, Ingalma'ri Bai, Ku Medkonhin againsf fheir conviction under Section 148 of the IPC is devoid of substance, 'the the appeal of appellant No.2 Sadhuram is hereby dismissed. However' partly allowed. Conviction imposed upon him under Section 148 of IPC is maintained. However his aresaid discussions I am of ‘i‘he considered 3w was nof jusi'ified in holding appellanf e offence under Section 307 of IPC for -8 Meh'H'ar and Bhisham Bai. peal preferred by appellanfs Pujeri Lal, ri, 5i'i'iya Bai @ Kirhin & Hir Bai @ conviction under Section 307 of the IPC /i ’ i y l i WW,W,W W m a.“ 200 same is liable to be dismissed and it is ‘ ? ‘ for afiemp'l'ing +0 murder Meh'r‘rar (Si Bhisham Bai and senfence £mpose‘d under 'Hm‘r secfion is: hereby 52+ aside, ins+ead +hereof he is canVic‘red under Secfion 32 ' af IPC. Taking info considem'rion ihe fac‘i’ ihu'i' The complainan‘i u‘n the accused persons had en'rered info a compromise during friul in e Lok Adalui, iherefore offence under i a s . i See'h'ons ‘323 (3i 324 of IPC ere compounded and They did no'i' face i 'friai in ihese secfions and fur-iher considering 'rhaf appeiianf No.2 has diready undergone 'rhe sen‘rence for a period of almosf 2i: mom‘hs during frial and fhereaf'ier approximately four mon'l'hs affer 'rhe judgmen‘i‘ was pronounced, he is senfenced 1'0 period already undergone. However, ‘i'he fine sen‘i'ence imposed on appellan'i' No.2- ‘Sadhuram by 'i'he iriai Courf is mainfained. é; a Hi, Sd/— v a. it , i ‘1: DMDRA msrm‘i ‘ Judge \ .{"’ MAHC 78 3. WW,W,W W m ‘H.in 200 3mm (W) i i ‘mwm‘m amaxésram‘a; / mmm / mmimm éwifmm ., ’qf