(S> ^'"" ^ "/:^\ S^...A.d^A.?^-A-^7 Advoc^b "7 CF0000058100 IN THH HIGH 0)URT Or &W3HYA PKADcSH AT JABALPUR. Gr.^peal fob^ 'n|?3 /1994..,. APP£LLMNISi i®Chety alias Patel son of Sykhan (,IN JAIL) aged obout 35 years.^ 2® Rosiha ^on of Foye^ aged 40 years' Botb B/o villsge Kot, PS Bateusi Oistrict Sarguja M<,P, -Versus-" / BESPUNDcNT! otate of .Madhya Pradesh GEi.APPcAL U/S 374^21 Gr.p.C. M^D^ BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.05 13:01:21 +0530 :-\ Ir %. HE6H COURT OF CHHATTISfiARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'blc Mr. Jvsttee Pl'mnker Dlwaker Crtminal At»ealNo. 1463 of 1994 ^PPELLANTS RESPONDENT Chetu @ Pflrt-el cmd another Vwsus State of Mfldhya Pradesh Shri Vineet Pandey, counsel for the appellonts. Shri Vdbhav 6overdhan, Panel Lawyer forthe State. CRIMINAL ^PPEAL UNDER SCCTION 374 (Z) OF CObE OF CRIMINAL mOCEbURE JUb©MENT (05.03.2011) This appeai is directed against th®iropugned judgment and order doted 22.11.t994 pasaed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Sessions Trtaj No. 40/1992 convjcting the accused/appeltants for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indicn Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo ryorous imprisonment for ten yecrs and poy fine of Rs.500, in defoult of payment of ffrie to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution, jn brief, is that on 24.7.t991 at about 12.45 p.m. F.I.R. (Ex.P-l)waslodged by viGtim Lahodon (PW-t) alleging in it that on that doy at ctoout 8 am. whw he had gone to sese the bund of his field whtch woiswashed awoy on account of roins, the accused/dppellants were present there and there some attercotion took place between them, accused/appeltant No. 2 Ronha cought hold of him ond then appellant No. 1 Chetu alios Potej assaulted on his head by means of axe and, thereafter, he again ossoulted on his right ey®and, he was thrown in a neorby pit. Based on this F.I.R., offence 3.. ^^ •^ ,<7 under Section 326/34 IPC was registwed again^ the accused/appellcBits, On 24.7.t99t itself the vtetim w<ss medicalty examined by Dr. V.K. Aftishra (PW-2) vkte Ex.P-Z «%1 query repQrl' w<»given by the sflinie doctoi* wi t8.9.199t vtde Ex.P-3. After jnvestigflrt-ion, c^^lwwas filed on 5.9.1W urKter Section 307/34 of Indion Penal Code. WMIe froming the charge, leamed trial Judge he» froro^l ftw chiorge tindeiK Section 307 in the altemotivctinderSectkai 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. So a$ to hold the oircusedAtppellants guilty, prosecution has excanined os moiny as 11 witnesses m syppwt <rf its cc»e. Stateaicnts of the flHxused/QppeNonts were olso recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crlminat Procedure in iKhich they denied the charge t«velled<^instth«iifliid |^^ innocence ond false impltccrt'ion in the cass* 4. Aftep hearing the paptiES the tptal Gourt' has convicted ond sentenced the ocaised/appeltflnts for the offence os mentioned above. Hence this appeat. 5. Counsel for the accused/appellorrt's sufeiwits that tNe accused/appellflnts hcwe been falsety impiicflrt-edwKl ^en ifthe entire case of the prosecutron istQk©?ias i* rs, Gt best offtsnce under Section 326 IPC js made oyt cQQJnst th® accused/appellQnts. 6. On the other hwd, support'mg the myu^rwA jyrfgmi^t it has been argued by the stote counset that on oeGount of assautt made by the accused/appeKonts the vjctlm had suffered multiple fractures of rib and scflqaula and bone deep injury oo his heod. He furt'her submits thot in the query peport 'o.^ Ex.P-3 Dr. V.K. Mishra (PW-2) has cteerly opined that the jnjuries No. 1 ond 6 were grievous in naturexmd it could hov® resulted in his deoth jf prompt medical treatment wouN rwt have been made availabte to him. We submits thot the victim wcw hospitalized for about one month and that jtgelf showsthe gravity of the injuries susfained by him. 7. I have heard counsel for the porties and pcni^ the moteriol available on record JnctucliCTg judgment h'npygned, 8. Victtm Lahadan (PW-l) has stoted in hwevi<tencethot on the date of incidentwhen he had gone to his ftelC h& «wthe accused/fl^pelloRtspresentthereandtheRhehadaakedtliem as to why thc bund of his fteN hfl bee nfcirnaged an<Iy thereafter, the accused/appellant No.t Chetu abuacd hlm and has asked the accused/appeltant No. 2 Ronha4»%a.^htJwMof him ond then he was cought hotd by theaecyo^/appellant No. 2 Ronha and the accused/appellant NQ. 1 Chetu a^oulted him by means of axe oh his head as a resuH' of which he stcrted bteeding. This witness hcs stated ttaflt thareafter, one mope injury was given on his backQnd thenhe was throwo by the accused persons in a nearby pit Qrrd, then appcHanN fled away from thespot.Me has further'stcrt'wlthot wifh the hetp of viMagers he was brought back to his houae cind then ^ws report was todged.In the cross-examination, this wjtness appears to be very ftrm ond has reitepated as to in what manner he was brutatly assautted by the accus«l/appeltorri'a. Dr. V.K. Mishra (PW-2) who had medieatly exoffiinecl the victim Lahodan (PW-17 cmd given his repwt Ex.P-t hasj'iotie^l following injurles on his body. ^,?: "(i) Two incised wound on scalp, in middle ond in onteroposterior direct'ton in the size of 8x ic.m cnd7x i c.m. bony deep. Both wounds meet ort- a place flnd form a continuous wound. (ii) Two incised wound near outer part- of right eye< morgins cleancut in the slziB of 3" c.m. x ^"c.m. X i<* c.m. (iii) One incised wound on right shoulder in the sizeof 3" X i", superficial. (iv) One lacerort'ed wound on jeft knee just below potella in th®size of 3*' c.m. x 1" c.m. (v) Abrosion on right elbow in the size of lc.m.xlc.m.. (vi) There is bruis®on scopular port'ion of back in the size of tO* x 8n c.m. swelting is present." According to him injury No. 1 was grievous in natureand (njurieis No. 2,3, 4 dnd 5 were simpte in no^urc. There flre muttipte fractures of ribs and there is fracture of nght scapula also, therefore, injury No. 6 wos atso griewus in nature. He has stoted that victim moy have dted if immediflte treatment would not have been given to him and the injuries sustained by hlm were dongerousto life. He hcs further stfft-ed thot the victim was unable to do his routine work ot the tlme of excBninort'ion. Dr. M.K. Jain (PW-3) is the Radiotogist, had taken the X-roy (Exs. P-6, P-7 A P-8) of the victim Lahadon (PW-l) has categorically stoted thdt he hod suffered as mony as seven fractures on his rib and also suffered fractur®of rlght scapula. Balsai (PW-4) is a witness to seizur'e of axe mode 'l. under Ex.P-10 and is also the witness of onvest mcmQ of the accused/appeilant Ex.P-10. Dahpot (PW-S) - son of th®victim hasstated that upon receiving the information of the incident when he rushed to the spot, he SOM the victim lying in a pit in th®injur^t condition and then he was shifted to th®Hospital and the report- was lodged. S.K. TJwoiri (PW-6) iso peon from whom the bad head ticket was seized. ASI Sure^i Tiwari (PW-7) <& 51 Subhash Das (PW-8) are the witnesses who hwe done part of investigotion. Head Constabie Kamta Kant Singh (PW"9) i«the Investigoting Offiper who has supported the co»e of the prosecution. Mukesh Ram (PW-10) -Patwari hod prepared the spot map (Ex.P-15). Bokhi (PW-11) - wife of the victim has stflted that upon receiving the informGition of the inGident when she rushed to thespot, she saw the victim lying in a pit 'm the injured condition. 9. AAinute exammatiQn of the stotement of the vtetim Lohoidan (PW-1) makes it clear that on the date Qf incident he wos brutally assautted by the accused/appellarrt's. ^edicat report (Ex.P-2) and the query report- (Ex.P-3) giwen by &r. V.K. Mishra (PW-2) supports the sl'at'ement &f the victim, aGCQrdin9 to which,vtctim hadsufferedasmoCTyassewnfrocturesonhis rib and the injuries No. t and 6 were grevious in ofltture and domgerous to life and suffident to couse his deort'h if the prompt medical treotment woutd not have been given to him and, therefore, convtetion of the accused/appeltGints under Section 307/34 isfutlyjustified. 10. As regards sentence, it ho»been argued by the eoynsel for th®appelloints that as the inctderrt' took place dbout 20 yeors back; accused/appeljants ore aged about 55 yecrs ond 60 years respectivejy; they have pemained in jaM about nine months, their sentences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. This submission has been seriously opposed by the Stote counsel who submits thot the manner in which victim (PW-1) was assaulted, makes it cteor that he was lucky to survive otherwise all the efforts were made by the accused/appeltants to kill him. 11. In view of above, the appeal te part'ly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment is maintained. Appejlants <re reporl'ed to have remained in jail for about rrine months; incident had taken ploce about 20 years bock and the appellants ore middle aged pepsons, a9ed about 55 years and 60 years, respectively and therefore, their sentencesof ten years dre reduced to that of three years rigorous jmprisonment. However, in tieu thereof, appeltcints are directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- (Rs.3,000/- by each of the appeUants) as f'me 'm addition to the fine amount os imposed by the trial Court- and the total cunount would be peyable to the victfrn Lahadan (PW-1). Theaccused/appellants ore peported to be on bail, they be sent back to jajj for swving out the rwnauning sentence. If the appellcnts fail to deposit the fine amount, they will serve the odditional jail sentence of six months. 12. Appeal thus partly succeeds. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge