m W {j/L’ g/ {1yL/3 CF000005901 g}. ‘ XII—lss/(Jau) c J P R 5,000-9-81 APREAL'aWPR‘ seN ER mm S%qm&g Father’s‘namé ~—g§@§a ' Sentenced tw%.mmf : C mwj on Z" g ‘ /&' 9/ i— ' Under secti%%§ r 7‘¢2" #QAfM‘Y & thy — ~571:7# ‘ 11 a , Name f” it is explaine‘é to the prisoner that if he states or wishes to be represented b\ a legal practitioner the Appelate Court will not proceed with the base for seven days unless ‘ I the legal prKactitioner appears. If the legal practitioner does not appr at m ill: in e seven representeydsbrlegal days‘lhe may nothbe practitioner heard at the all courtmay If the prisoner proceed states at ’once that he with does the not case wish and to will not be ohliged to give a hearing to any legal practitioner who should appear. 1 l l Date of Application for gopy of Judgement K g ‘ 2 Date iof which copy received 3 Dateion which Appeal sent Like; 'Whether the prisoner wishes to be represented or not — YesM : \ Contnued Nor-rxiQiQig in éaj at~é—‘é/ Forwarded to the CHIEF lUDlCIAL MAGISTRATE it 3': 3- to gatherrwith- dn to the _a proper copy of Appilliate judgement CourtM" or order pas ed in ' yh’gaiceiyfaxour ‘ of ‘ A m ’ Superintendent-Central/ Ditg I : 1 transmissi‘ 3mm‘44aégé1/a/m , H ~ " L Date ofrefceipt in c. J. Mrs oe‘ice Date of'reiceipt of record to‘ accompany Memo of :Appeal of the Appeliate Court. Nov I ‘IM—79—&%91K~Dated §—'l—7%+—19s Forward‘d to the —£&&M_:VQ15KL_&3§%’§EL ‘v:\ i ’ , ‘ 7 (1310.) / 7 %@?[f b a i f é p ded/¥Zg/ ‘ I t M§t§i§ i ‘ ‘ in “it“ . éL p & ‘ €29” HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 1152 of 1991. APPELLANT Dilbodhram VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri A.N. Bhakta counsel for appeHant. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for respondent/State n“ V “'r CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2! OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT (11.03.2010) \ This appeai is directed against the judgment dated 4.12.1991 passed by Additionai Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 35/1991 convicting the accused/appeiiant for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 452 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and one year respectively on each count and pay fine of Rs. 500 on each count, plus default stipulations. { . 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19.10.1990 at about 2 a.m. FIR Ex. P—4 was lodged by Bachan Ram (PW—2) alleging that on 18.10.1990 at about 9 p.m. when he was taking meals in the house of one Akatram (PW-3), accused/appellaht came there U‘ carrying axe in his hand and dealt three blows with it on his neck. Thereafter, he was medically examined by Dr. Aasha Tripathi (PW—15). 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 15 Witnesses In support of its case Statement of they oaccused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code i of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelledi against him and pleaded his'innocence and false implication in the: case. xi W .—Z.—- 4._ After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant for the offence as mentioned above. 5.‘ Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. , Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out against the accused/appellant. He submits that at the time of incident, accused/appellant was not carrying any weapon with him and he had picked up the axe from the} h‘ouse of Akatram itself and assaulted the victim. He submits that the injuries caused to the victim were simple in nature and in this view ofkthe matter at the most the appellant can be convicted under Section 325 IPC. ‘ On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the Court below convicting and sentencing the appellant as mentioned above are strictly in accordance with Iaw as the material collected by the prosecution and the injuries sustained by the victim clearly show that the appellant was predetermined to commit his murder but he was fortunate enough to survive due to the timely medical aid given to him. Thus according to him no interference with the judgment impugned is called for. 7. ¢ 8. Bachan Ram (PW-2) has categorically stated Tn his evidence that at the relevant time he was working as post master whereas the accused/appellant was working as postman. According to this witness, as the accused/appellant remained absent from his duty without submitting an application therefore, he had asked him not to repeat the said practice. He has stated that on the eve of Diwali festival Akatram (PW-3) had invited him for the dinner and when they both were taking their meals, accused/appellant came from behind and gave three axe blows on his neck as a result of which he started bleeding and became unconscious. After he regained consciousness, he went to his house and then with the help of his _$__ sons he went to the hospital where he received treatment. In the cross examination aiso, he has stated the same thing as has been stated by him in the examination in chief. Akatram (PW-3) has also supported thetstatement of Bachanram categorically stating that when they were taking meals, accused came there and started assaulting the complainant with the help of axe. Karaj Kunwar (PW- 4) has also supported the case of the prosecution and stated that when she was serving food to her husband and the complainant, accused came there and started assaulting the complainant with the help of axe. Kartik Ram (PW-5) is the person who had rushed to the spot after hearing the cries and seen the victim with injury on his neck, in the house of Akatram and on enquiry he was told that the complainant was assaulted by the accused/appellant. Khirod Bairagi (PW—6a -— seizure witness of clothes of the accused/appellant, Mohitram (PW—7)‘ seizure witness of clothes of the victim, Dilbodh (PW-8) and Sapuran (PW-9) seizure witnesses of blood stained as well as plain soil, blood stained bronze plate and Tulsi rosary, have also supported the case of the prosecution. lnVestigating Officer namely Gajendra Prasad Tiwari (PW-13) has also supported the case of the prosecution. Dr. Sharad Awasthy (PW—14) who had cdnducted the radiological examination of the victim has supported the case of' the prosecution. Dr. Aasha Tripathi (PW—15) who has medically examined the victim has found following three injuries on his body: (i) A semi lunar cut injury in the size of 2 1/2 “x bone deep below occipital region; v‘ (ii) almost parallel toinjury No.1 in the size of1 1/2" below it. Another cut injury in the size of 2 1/2" x 1/2” x bone deep; (iii) cut injury in the size of1 x 1/2 x 1" below injury No.2. i u ‘ 9. Thus from the evidence of victim Bachan Ram (PW-2) which ) has been duly corroborated by the evidence of Akatram (PW-3), Kartik Ram (PW-5) and the medical evidence, the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that the appellant was predetermined to commit the murder of the victim and in this view of the matter the findings recorded by the Court below convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 307 IPC is just and proper and needs no g ._.(_4’_‘ inten‘erence in this appeal. Similarly, the record also shows that when the victim was taking dinner in the house of Akatram (PW-3), the accused/appellant came from behind carrying axe in his hand and dealt three blows with it on his neck. Thus his conviction and 9 sentence under Section 452 IPC also being strictly in consonance with the evidence put‘forth by the prosecution, no disturbance with the same is warranted by this court. Accordingly, the judgment impugned so far as it relates to conviction of the accused/appellant under both the sections is maintained. 10.: As regards sentence under Section 452 IPC, it is maintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years imposed on the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. However, the tinekof Rs. 505‘is enhanced to that of Rs. 4,000, out of which Rs. 3,500 would be payable to the victim within a period of three months from today. Failure to do so, shall lead to restoration of the sentence imposed by the trial Court. 11. With the observations made above, the appeal partly succeeds. i sci/5 Pritinker Diwaker Judge