Wm in 200 GRPRJ ~~— FS/246-w T200? Mr ‘SHO a; XI-HC—78 WW,W,W WW 1:1 2m) 3mm (W) WWW mmifzém awimm a.— 2— » The case of the prose cu’rion, in brief, is Tha’r on 6.10.2003 a’r abou‘f 7—10 a.m. compl1inanf Agahan Bai along wiTh her daughTer-in-law Reena Bgi w€ls refurning from Kawar'dhu fo Village Bar'kohi affer- wifnessing Dashher'a‘, when fhey reached near V Jangal Khar canal, The appell nT assauITed Agahan Bai wiTh an axe over her head, as a resui‘r of hich Agahan Bai became unconscious and fell down on The groundJ Thereaffer', ’rhe appellanf fled from There. Reena and her sisTer LaliTa narraTed The incidenT To Their» u. fa‘rher Gokar'an, Sadhr'am an ofher‘ villagers. The complainant was Taken fo The GovernmenT spiTal, Kawardha wher'e Dr‘. K.K. sharma examined her and so gave informa’rion To The Police STaTion Kawardha, which w s recorded in Roznamchasanha on 6.10.2003 aT 10.45 hrs. On ay, fracTure was found on The skull of Agahan Bai. ‘The docTor opined ThaT injury was grievous in naTure and The paTienT cou die in The absence of TreaTmenT. Injuries could be caused by xe seized from The accused on This basis of memorandum give by The accused. The vicTim was referred To The Medical Coll ge HospiTal, Raipur, where she was furTher referred To Bombay for.TreaTmenT, however, Agahan Bai expressed her inabiliTy in goi g To Bombay for TreaTmen/t///V o l r l J GRPRJ ¥ FS/246w 2/2007 A u Af'rer compIeTion of The filed in The Cour'l‘ of Judicial Mac offer commiT‘ral The some was I v learned Addi‘riona! Sessions Jud i i swiTnesses in all during Trial, The eafTer The sTaTemenT of accused was recorded under Sec’rion 3 3 of Cr.P.C. and offer hearing Learned counsel for The respe Tive parTies, iearnedr AddiTional Sessions Judge has convicfed and senTenced The appeIIanT as menTioned herein above. Dr. LS. Thakur (PW—10), ho had examined The complainanT and gave his reporT of EXP-16, ad noTiced one incised wound on The lefT side of‘forehead of siz 5cm x 2cm, injury was bleeding and anofher incised wound of siz 5cm x 1.5cm on The lefT parieTal region, fresh blood was present; On x—ray examinaTion, bone of lefT side of The head was found fracTured. X-ray reporT is Ex.P— ‘ 17. The docTor has opined Tha injuries were grievous in naTure and The paTienT could die in Th absence of TreafmenT. Injuries were caused by some sharp edg d weapon and The same could be caused by axe seized from T e~accused, which was senT for examinaTion To The docTor. invesTigaTion, charge sheeT was yisTraTe FirsT Class, Kawardha and eceived on Transfer for Trial by e. The prosecution examined 10 MA .. “ s m m A Q@ “Hi 200 mm (W) WWW mm m maf‘gaaném (3/ WWW 1®2WW awfmm WW,W,W Wm Wt 200 mam mam ma: WW (W) WWW mmiimm $WW (—‘xf( Learned counsel for The appellant submits ThaT fhere is no evidence availab1e on record 1’ 1’ ’rhe appellanf inflicfed injuries wi’rh an in’renTion to cause dvea’r of Agahan Bai, as fhe complainam‘ did noT make any allega’rion fha ”the appellan’r assaul’red her with The offence was inifially regisfered under Sections 324 506-B of The IPC and Therefore, in the absence of any evidenc that the injLiries were inflicted with an intention to cause dea h of Aghan Bai, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3O of the IPC cannot be sustained. She further submits that the v ctim became speechless after the incident, as she was not provid d proper treatment, as advised by the doctor, and therefore she i not able to state the reasons for the assault. Eyewitness Reena ai (PW—3) has stated that only one injury was inflicted to her grandmother by the appellant from the back side of the axe as a reslJlt of which she fell down on the ground and there were big boul ers near the place of incident. On the other hand, leal‘ned Panel Lawyer for the State supported the impugned judgm nt. I it fan inTen‘rion fo cause her d afh. I have heard learned cou sel for the parties. PW-4 Sadhram is the s of Agahan Bai. This witness has stated that his daughter Lali a and Reena had gone wtiness GRPRJ FS/246e — 2,5200” ~ 5015M}: J HW,WW,W Q$ WT m ai 200 WW (W) mmm mm Wax mmwwm WWIIWW éaaimm /E// g‘x Dashhera with his mofher' Agahan Bai. They refurned af abouf 8.00 a.m. and Told him fhaT accus ed has assaulfed Agahan Bai near fhe canal, as a result she is Jying ’rhere, whereupon, he wenf fo fhe place of incidenf, brough‘r his rro‘rher‘ and took her' to Kawar'dha that Agohan Bai was able to speak, however, after the incide t she was not able to speak. £ PW-I‘Agahan Bai is the vi tim. The trial court has recorded an observation that the vict 1 “hospital. He has further stat is unable to speak completely, ‘ however, she answers the questi ns by speaking ‘yes’ & ‘no' and on the basis of this observation he statement has been recorded in " question (Si answer form. witness pointing towards the Th accused has stated that he ass ted on her both legs near knees, both her hands and right si of head and the assault was inflicted on her by an axe, as t accused assaulted on her by axe over her head, both legs and ands. She has denied that the injuries were inflicted from the ack side of the axe or with club. She insists that injuries were i flicted by the axe. She denies the suggestion that accused did ot assault her. PW-3 Reena, who is an eyewitness of the incident and grand—daughter of the complain t, has stated that accused is her grand—father, whereas, Agahan ai is her grand-mother. She had GRPRJ FSz246-m- 2/2007 ~— 50,300: d i i a l d h Ear W, Wm, WW @ \1 gone To Kawardha ’ro wi’rness Da: Kawardha on fqoT To Village B‘ Jangal Khar' canal, The aceused over The head of her' grand moTh fsepqraTed by her' aunT namely N sTaTed ThaT she narraTed The Eokar‘an, her uncle Sadhr'am an ;hhera, They were reTurning from Irkohi, when They reached near came from behind and assaulTed er by The back of axe. They were 1nd Kunwar Bai. She has furTher incidem‘ To her moTher, faTher cross—examinaTion This wiTness T :l also To oTher villagers. In The incidenT There were b'ig boulders fell on The boulders. Peruram (PW-2) & Bhanwar Singh (PW—6) are The wiTnesses of memorandum sTaTemenT (EXP of axe was affecTed. However, Peruram (PW—2) Turned hosTili. and he has denied ThaT any memorandum or seizure of axe ivas affecTed on The basis of The memorandum of The accused, signaTures on Ex.P—1 & EXP-2 whereas, Bhanwar Singh (PW—6) N SelZl-lr'e. So far as The submission of learned counsel for The appellanT ThaT There is no evidence available on record ThaT The ‘ IF as admiTTed ThaT on The place of and afTer The assaulT, Agahan Bai —1) of The appellanT on The basis of which The seizure (Ex.P—2) “v ,‘Though he has admiTTed his being memorandum and seizure, has proved The memorandum & GRPRJ — FST’246i— 2/2007 €G 0“? i W W R1 200 mm (W) WWW Wm Was mmmm /Q/ Wmawm %3T§memé¥r W m m 200 WW (W) amggg mmmm W$a§$f§fm ‘ -7:- t assaul’r was made by The appellam‘ wifh an infen’rion fo cause dea’rh of Agahan Bai is concerned, from ‘rhe ‘per‘usal of The injury reporf of Ex.P-16 as also X‘my rgport of the skull (EXP-17) wherein fr'acfur'e in The skull bone ha been found and which has been pr‘oved by Dr. I.$. Thakur (PW—), if is clear Tha‘r The ussouH was made by on axe on a‘vifal par’r ’rhe body i.e. head of Te vic’rim ds a resalf~ of which she sus’ ned Two ncised injur‘ies an one fruc‘rure in fh skull. The trial ar? has righfly inferred fhaf The inTTion of he appellanT was cause deaTh of Agahan Bai and argumenT in This regard o rned counsel for The ppellan cannoT be susTaned. STaTeenT of The vicTim ahan Bai is duly corroboraTed by The by The sTaTemenT FIR. of of Ex.P—7, Reena which Bai (Pv3), h which is furTher corroboraTed ‘ s been regisTered on The basis of iformion given by Reen Bai PW-3). So far as The discrepancy i P rn naT a ( n The sTaTemenT of Reena Bai (l/1&3) egardig porTion of The axe used for The purpose of assaul is concerned, looking To The age of Reena Bai, her version regardig assaulT by The appellanT cannoT be dislieved solely on Te Vbasis of above discrepancy parTicularl when in The FIR name of The accused has been menTioned as The assailanT and vicTim herself has deposed before ' GRPRJ »i FS,‘246—~ 2/2007 56.0630. K ‘ W s ‘ i" ’ 10 cf h r ’ i d e o en T o f l a aT i m g L t T n be h ‘ y WW?W,W WW (W) mmm Wm§wm év‘mm On fhe basis of above nnalysis, fhis Courf is of The considered opinion ’rhe prosecui‘ on has been able to prove The case against ’rhe appellanf beyonc reasonable doub’r and ’rhe courT below has noT commi‘rfed any irregularly or illegali’ry in convicfing and sen‘renci'ng ’rhe appellant under Sec‘l'ion 307 of The IPC. n‘ 1* ‘ ‘l‘he cour'T and poin’red Towards the appeHanT as fhe person who assaulted over her head. In The resulT, The appeal has no subsTance, The some is ' liable To be dismissed and iT is hereby dismissed. , ,2// $°l’ I w$§$ \ lip X) Wm Ta 200 GRPRJ egg/246w 2/2om A e «(m