r-,i 1;^. 3?rT^T^T ^jcti sni^T 5h^ich '?[ft?T -S^t •^(FTFR, •S^FTS. r»lCTl'yy 317^?T ^^K iwq^'gFit^''*'**''***'''**'*"*'^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ 200 •Iq^T"""""" 3?n^i:^<nw ^rf^f CRIMINAL [Sjnste Bench: Sjw ^PEU.ANT (Injai!) Vs RESPON NT P4rideshrQm Bhard^aj.son ofDaduram B|iardM/aJ, aged 27 years, Cultivator, /o Village <3rodam, P.S. and Tahsil ^rangarh, Digtt. Raigarh (C.6.) St^ite of Chhattisgarh, through the |ce StaTion P.S. Sarangarh, Tahsil Pot Sai 'Present:1'" ••••;•"["- • :;- Mr. yogeshwar Sharma, Advo Mr. Arun Sao,6o'vt. Adv.ifor OR^L (14th ^©pteijiber,200^ P@r &hjr@ndra Mishra. J^ This appeal is dlirected order 0'f sentence dated 18T wh^reby iearned l^ Adldition< the appetlant under Sectior scntenced him to undergo Rs.1,000/-, in defauit of paym| months; R.I. f<r 7years and chl^fd^'-l "WRTf "^ 'fe1^ iFsi^K '^a^PT^TT^T ^PEAL N0.571/2005 'bte Mr. Justic®Dhir@RdraJ^ishr^] angorh, bistt. Raigarh, ate for the appeilant. hg respondent-State. JU06^ENT against the judgment of conviction and AAay, 2005 passed in S.T. No. 124/04 Sesgion^ Judge, Rdgarh h©^convicted 1s 450, 307 & 325 of the IPC and |.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of ^nt of fine to further undergo 5.1. for 4 l|o pay a fine of P.s.1,000/-, in default of .^^ :s- .;^-t t~ ^ 1 —1 fi :;;&! XI-HC-22 ^•wl r<11^1<y1<1 ?PT, ^ftWS, ^t^y -STT^T^T f^wsni^T 5b^ict»^lf^T ^l^. 3^?T XRRR ^lUdl sb^i*''*****'**'''''*''*'''''''''''''^'^ ^ ' 1^<ST"""""""""""""""""" 3?n^Ti'^<TTw^rf^ ~Zr\ payment of fine to further years and to pay a fine of R^. further undergo S.I. for 2 have been d irected to run codc Gase df the prosecuti^n nighiof 23rd <& 24th March/1 afong ^jth his famity. Hiswi| verandah, whereas, his son 12.00 in the midnight the a^e and asked Vishnu that he ha^ for a sum of Rs.40,000/-, th^ obtalning it from him or his v| with the backc of spade on BhGJanbd stopped him fram| aiso and pressed her teft* e)j btooct started oozing froni spade on her head & back. the home, however, Rohjt hi reported by BhGJanbd at incident vide Ex.P-15. Bothl examination to the Primary were examined by Dr. R.L. cbl^lfd^-1 'HFRTf ^ f^T^ <^l^i< ^^^mw^ jndergo 5,1. for 4 months & R.I. for 3 .5QO/-, in defautt of payment of fine to jnonthg respectively. Al! the sentences 'r|currently» i, in brief, i5 thcit in the intcrvening 2004 Vishnu Bhardwaj WGS in his house Fe namety Bhqjan Bai wa^ gteeping in the r^imety Rohit was sleeping inside. Around ^jeliont forced esrtry through their door gtood surety of Chandra Shekhar Ratre (refore, he ghould neturn the some after ?hicle and on his refusal he assaufted him his temporat region AshouSder. When ^ssauiting, the appetlant assaulted her te with his thumb GS a result of ^'hich eye. He Gtso assaulted BhojanbGi by nhe appellQnt searched for Rohit inside |j inside the granary. The incident wos ^out 3.00 a.m. immediatejy afl-er the the injured were ^ent for medicai [Hedth Centre, SarcingGrh ^here they |idar (PW-5), Medjcal Officer at about Ner ^,r ••^ 1 XI-HC-22 ^TT^T^T [^iicb 3n§?I ^RW?fi?T 'Ta^ ^il^lld^l. ^Til^^Ko, f®(<ni^^< 31T^?T '<^^7 ^IUdl sb^i*''*'*'*****''''''*'**"''^*^^^^^^^^ ^ [c|<b<^y"""""' ^T^Tl'^RTT^R: ^f^T —^— 4.30 a.m. on 23.3.2004 and thelr injury reports are ExP-7 & P-8 the respectivejy. ^ After completion df inv^s Cour't pf Jyciici&I AAagiStrat'e committG! the same i^as recet Additional Segsions Judge. Di|r witnesses in all, thereafter under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and fajse implicatian. Ho^evej jearned counge! for the resp^c the appeftant, ds mentioned in] Learned counsel for t( were made by'the back side therefore/the intention of attributed to the appellant. Sidar (PW-5) it has beeri ar^ Para 13 that Vishnu did not bonc and there is overwritind report ofEx.P-12isthe docto^ the appefiant under Section offence against the appellant theIPC. ct)N(<rt<fll ^M<A "^ f^l<l ipai^K ^3rf^m3T^T mv^stigort'ion, charge sheet was filed in the Firgt Class, SarangQrh and after ved on transfer for trial by learned 1 |ring trial/the prosecution examined ten stotement of accused I^QS recordecS i|i i^hich the GppeJbnt pleQded innocence \ ieorned Sesslons Judge after hearing ^ctivc parties cortvicted and sentenced i para l of th is judgment. |e appeflant gubmits that the assau!ts of spade over the injured persons and death pf injuredyishnu cannot be teferring to the statement of Dr. R.L. ^ued that thig yi/itness ha^ admitted in tuffer any fracture over her tcmporGl in the report of Ex.P-12 and thus, the ;totled report. Therefore, the conviction of ^37 of IPC cannot be sustained and the jdoes not fravel beyond Section 326 of copsing __YL t ^ .•:^i- tj ^' ^- ^ f XI-HC-22 STT^T'^T Y<W^ ^s^ 5^«-iict) ^yf^cT -^5E[ •^Nld14* ^'^<n<o< ^<ni<iy 3TT^?T tRra? ^l^l $b*<icb'*****''**'''<'<'"'*''****'<*''*'' ^H^ 200 '•fa^y' ^FTT^Tl'^iT^T ^R^T ie^ —^-{ Qn the othen hand, the im pugned Juclgment. I hove heard leamed 4 the inipugned judgment as ats^ Dr, R.U Sidoir has be^l the injury report (Ex.P-7) lacerated wound bvcr her left the injury her vigion in thc t^o bruise^ on her ieft shouli of Ex.P-11, Bhcijanboi has SLJ Simitariy, he has also exon| lacerated ^oond over his lefS°| one abrosion over teft ^houldi of the left' eye as G result further observed biceding f?^ ^kuit/ as there wag bieeding of injured Vishnu is Ex.P-12. has opined that the injuries result in death. So far og the argumer| that there ig ovenwiting in t^ out thg word 'simpie', the ^ chl^fd^l'l TnH^if"? f^l' <^i^i< ^^TPm^TT^T tear^ned counse! forth^ State hag supported ounsel for the parties. T hove perused the evidence avQiIable on record. 1 exGmined as PVVrn-5 and he has proved of Bhqjanbai in which he found one eye.It is mentioned that because of eye has been affected. He also found ler and teff' thigh, A€per X-ray report ffered fracture of left clavicle bone. lined injured Vtehnu and noticed one chin and bruiscs around that injury and |r. He also noticed. sweiling above and Jid bf which his left eye wa^ doged. He bin ear. He advised for X-roy of the th@ lcff ear. X-ray report of sku!l n replyto the query from the police, he ^aused by back side of the ^pade cauld from |t of learned counsel for the appetSant e report of ExP-12 where aft'er scoring |ord 'grievous' hos been sub^tituted is ;1 ! t XI-HC-22 37T^T'^T f<riicb ^^ ^RNr^ifin 'S^ ^ll^lld<4, ^Til<i<i<i< 3irif3?T 1q?ra? Wff^'^KV^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'^^9^ ^ 200 "•f^ST-"—" ^TT^T^'^n^T ^rf^r —s- concem€d/X<"r<yfilm of the open to the appeilant to verif^ by the jnjured Vishnu, howev| the basisof X-roy fi Im ayaib| ^gme over^riting over thc te^ version ofthe docfor, who ha left side of temporG! bone of oM4<f<n<i1i ^i*i<riT ^ f^^ <R»i^i< ^3rf^R3^T ^eport ^ag avGiJGble on record Qnd it was ^the injury, which wa^ actuQlly sustained -^w^^ gr/no qucstion ^s put to the doctor on ^ie on record and therefore/ pregcnce of if of X-ray report w'tl not discredit the s apinedthat there was a fracture in th@ ^ishnu. So far as the argumet'jts of (earned counge! for thc appeliant that thc assGul^ werc niade ^ythe bock side ofthe spade, therefore, the Qppeliant^ had no intenticjn to cauge death is concerned, for the pyrpose of inferring intentiot| the weapon of offence, the force with which the assauit is made ^d the portion of the body where thg victim is assautted is to bel ailegation is that the cppeHG^ considered. In the instant case, the t entered the house of injured persons inthe midnight and assaulted |v/ith the back ofspade over vital portion of Vishnu i.e. heod, shoulderjand left eye as cs resuit of which blood startecir oozing out from 1^he right ear. Therefbre, taking into" consideration the nature of i|ijuri€Ssustained by injured Vishnu, this caurt is of the considered op nion that the triaj courl' ha^ rightly held that the offence falts under $ection 307 of the IPC. So far a^ theinvolvem^nt ofthe appeilant in crime in question is concerned, all the three ^itnesses i.e. Bhajanbai (PW-7), Vishnu ? ^ $'^ ^ XI-HC-22 ^TT^T'^T f^ri^ sn^r 5h4-lich ^fi^T ^GC| v^ll^ll<ylct ?PT, ^ftwrs, [^^i^y 31T^T ^S^K ITTq^^TOt^'^^^^^^^^^*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ 200 'l^tT' 3n^I;"^<H^R ^rf^rT -6- (PW-8) <S Rohit (PW-9) have | sleeping in their hou^e on the accused armed mth gpade ent^r in tb? name^ of retyrn of Rs.40^ which the injured Vishnu stood] oh hig refusal he firjgtassault4< Bhajabai ; and ialso searched corrobordted by the medical 4° hayc sustQmed grievous s'njuri duly proved bythe doctor (PVy opinion of this Court the sentenced the appejlant under So fw as the submissiot that while ^entencing the app| deaft with ienicnw is conc@rne< pGrticuiariy considering the house in fhe midnight and assaL|l their house. In the resuit, the appeal be dismi^sed and it is hereby di chl^id^l-l 'WT^f^i^t <FSI^I< ^T 3rf^H:T 3TT^?r cQtegoricaily stated that they were late of incident in the night when the red the houge ond picked up a quarrej )00/- being the gniQunt towards surety For ChandrGiShekhar Ratre (PW-1) and |d Vishnu and thereafter hc assaulted [for Rohit. Their statement is duly vidence, as both the injured persons ?g over their person, which has been f-5) and therefore, in the considered bebw hd§ rightly canvicted and aforesaid sections. c<4jrt •flhe |i of teGrned counset for the appellant 3tltGnt the cpurt be!oi¥ ought to have I, I Qm unabte to accept this Qrgument c^nduct the oppeilGnt i"n entering the [Iting two persons, who were sleeping in has no gub^tance, the same is !JGble to ^missed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ;1 1 .;* ^ .^'^ '^ ^o^^^l—