. r versus The State of Madhya Pradeah (Now Chhathsgarh) HIGH COURT OF CHHNFHSGARH AT E!LASPUR‘, Criminal Apyea! No.653 of 1$31 Maan Pratap san of Bhcdairam Cherwa, aged about 40 ygars, RS. 1. resident ;of . Pahar Hanswahi; Ketharh District Surguja. Bhodairam , (Died and deleted) Mama! em of Laxman Ahir aged (“J about 35 years resident of Pahar‘ s Hanswa‘v P $ Keihan mam Vliiage‘ 1 'Chuladar P S Sonhat DistricL Surguja Sunderlal son of Samam Cherwa aged 35 years ree:dent of Pahar Hanswah! PS Kelhar., District Surguja 2 ~— . ancion is caenged on the ground at without any ieta 0f evidence the ‘triai Court has convicted & sen‘tened the apenans as aforementioned and therey commtted illit‘ . Case of the prosecution in rief is that on 27 11 89 at about 5 p rr Langhal (PW-1) was going towards school alt the appellants along With deceased Bhodal were wamng him near their houses, appellan Manpratep was hotding bow and arrow appellant Ehodalram (since deoeaseo) was homing stick appe.lant Mottram was holding axe and appeltant Sunderlal was holding stick they used filthy language to the complainant and chased for assaulting hm Langhal tneo to escape \ from the spot Appellant Manpratap caused injury to hlm by arrow shot ver hts abdomen, he fell down and become unconscmus, then appellant anpratap also assaulted him by stick. Villages came and took him to Police Station Kelhari where he lodged the F.I.R. vide EXP/1. He ent for medical examination and treatment to Community Health Centr enendragarh, he was examined by Dr.P.K.Niyogi (PW-10) vie x.Pl25 A who found following injuries over the body of Langhai:- "Stab ,wound with arrow over abdomen which was taken out a eaied ‘ " p t tilg dp pia 4 u o carae ee over nn o M was s e, M d E j) nd s; i) One incise woun o riht ear i O l a n) ne abrasmn over soapuar region are ) inelsed wound of 3t” x 3'2" x Ya" over left om. injur No.1 foun over the abdomen wasldanerous to lif mmedate surgicai reatmenwas given an metal par of arrow was emoved vide Ex.Pi27B. The complainant was discharged from th ospital on 16 12 89 vide Ex P122 During the course of examination pot map was prepared by the investigating officer Vide Ex P/2 E o loodstained & plain sail were recovered from the spot Vide Exs P/3 t IS. Appellant Manpratap made disclosure statement of bow Vid EXP/12 and on the basis of his statement bow was recovered from hi Vide Ex‘P/S appeiiant 'Vlotilal made disclosure statement of axe vide EA P/‘H same was seized frorn him Vide Ex P18 and appeiiant $underlai made disclosure statement of stick Vide Ex Pi’i3 same was seized from him Vide Ex.P,9. Arrow was recovered from the bod of complainant @ CVit hll th g pt b i egaiy b t i d d f l" x g n jt y d g e. ii tt‘ d t . r e h s P e m . y Part f arrow and pt d o metal ar of arrow were seEze i‘ Lahghai vi' 1 4. vide emens af the Witnesss r recore e ction 161 f th Code of Cnmmai Proceure 1:5 (m ehort ‘the ode) and afte completion of investigatxon charge sheet was fled before the Additiona. Chief JudICIal Magistrate, Manendragarh who in turn committed the ‘ ‘e to the then Court o Sessions Ambikapur from where iearnedr onai SesSIons Judge Manendrarh received the case on transfe h order to prove the gum of the accuseappellans the prosecuion ha exemmed as many as thirteen w.tnesses The accused/appellants were exemmed under Section 3t of the Code where they denied the circumstances appearing egamet them and pleaded tnrocence and false Implication in the crime m quesnon The appellants have also examine defence Witnesses Tekchand (DW—t) Mandhan Singh (DW-2) a Randheer Smgh (DW—3) who have deposed that complainant Largh was chased Manpratap, he was hofding axe ‘e assaulted Bho al' an the appel‘ants have not caused injuries to Langh d/t t s After affording opportunity of hearing to the paries eame iiona he \ appellants w g 7 th t N 2 Bht dd During pendency of e appeal appeltan o ondaram ie _ ‘8 du th p pd t jdgnt l have hearlearned oounset ror e arties eruse he ume impugned and record of tne tnat Court . s t d tht the - Learned counsel for the appeltants vehemeniv argue a in r present case the prosecution has not proved rts case beyond all shadow nt of doubt Evrdence adduoed on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficie ' ‘ for drawrng inference that appellant Manpratap has caused fatat iniunes to complainant Langhai by use of bow and arrow As per eVIdenoe of ‘ Langhai (PW-1), appellants Motilal and Sunderlal have not caused any} a injury to him therefore conviction 8t sentence of appeltanrs Motitat and Sunderlat are not sustainable under the law As reards the uestior of " o y nwotion & sentence of appellant Manpratap, oonSidenng the pendenc the appeal nature of injuries ar‘d absence of any opinion of the docto Q9 -3, de EXP/ Ex;Pi15r _, tt e wee dd undr Se o e d 9? C r ic r ’ “I g r d nd - ai t d a: *6 t td Addtl t as Sessions Judge convmred 8: sentenoed aforementioned r g q " f r, ~~ elaing to ravay o e Injuries e perio aiready sufere y im a uffmen sentence under Section 307 h a o 1 e tt Tk Nth K ey: I ment ': e, s a ‘ e L M x s ' r n nd " .r ppt S t 307 q d nal e 1In;e oter han earne ae dence 0 arned counsel pieced rellance an the maer of ara a Anr v State of West Bengal‘ m which the Apex Court has h 1 e ’ “ ' consadenng the pendency of the appeai for smoe test 18 years th perked already undergone and fne of Rs 13000i- was found sedi erter‘ce to the appellants under Section 307/34 of the lndl cou ' eel further ptaced reliance In tne matt L P 2m htoh High Court of Madhya Pradesh ha at in the absence of reason a eiatmg to nature of Injury, oonvrctron of th aellan under‘ on of the lndlan enat Code is not sustarnable and It reuires to be altere under Section 324 of the lndlan Pe Coo nse suppore e jugmen uoed on ehalf of th I‘ pugned and argued that uffrolent for drawrng Inference that the appeltants hav omml‘ted the offence In shenn common Intention and nave cause ul td th dt fd b e : ‘s e ( ' o g d ' njdnes to the oomlarnan order to appreciate the arguments avance on eaf of e paries ave examined the eVIdenoe addu d on behalf of the partlee 3 n the present case z'njurl over the boy of compemen ang h ve not been subst uted by the appetlanta, otherwrse al tabilshed “by the ievrden‘ e of compialnant Langhal (PW I (PptO), medicai I examrnatron report Ex Pl25 r R N Kabbat (PW-t 2) his repO't Ex P/27B and dischar e ’22 nhlch reveal that metal part of arrow was found mSIde abdome htoh was taken out b su ' to” treatment Qne shot of 3" x 2’wa und over abdom organs ie meeentery of large rntestin jejunum of emalt Intestlne an mesentery of small Intestine were v o cut In fve places and blood was found Insrde the abdomen This show “‘ t gy j d e he raVIt ofmures an Its natur w _ 11 ear (4) Crimes 368 (so) 2 r (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 21 4 rt gt f th th d fd b h s V st 0f te mdln Penal Cde ' 10th h d ld Stt a t I pt n dd bhl th t l h d d lt Lhat =~1 I ee v an ' p so e - I W Av D g tickt ‘ ff n w y -s _’ fo e e, - ( u V " s 2 mm MAS regars the Gompmlt of the accusedfapeiiants In the cnme I question Langhal (PW ) hao categoncally depcsed In his evxdence t while he was gmng towards schooi an the appeiiants were present near teir hcuees they were hoidmg weapons they chased and fanai¥ Manpratap assauited him by arrow shot over hrs abdemen He has pecn‘rcaHy deposed that he become unconscious therefare he was not posrtron to say whether Motrla! and Sunderiai were assaurted him or Phuibal (-2) has deposed In her evrdence that an the appe ants present at one spot they were holding weapons and they were rng Langhar Defence has oross-examrned this wrtness at iength but has not been able to elrcrt anythrng In her cross-examination t edit her testimony, especlatty relating to the fact that appeHan Manpratap has not caused any arrow injury to Langha! and at! th appenants have not chased htm at the time of mcrdent The apeitarts have examined defence Witnesses Tekchand Mandhan Smgh an ‘ ndheer Slngh who have Virtually admitted the presence of Bhodal an npratap and have tried to show that the compiamant was trying t cause mjury to Bhodal and Manpratap, but they have not lodged an report No injury was found over the body of Bhodal and Manprata ‘ Evrdence of Langhar (PW-1) substantially corroborated by the evrdence of Phutbal (PW-2) and other Witnesses who have seen the injure .. complarnant also finds corroboration from promptly lodged F t R Ex and medical evrdence are suffrcrent for drawing Inference that th lappetlants had chased Langhar they were holding weapons an pellan' Manpratap has assaulted him by arrow shot Chasmg the complainant wrth weapons and Injuries caused by one person out of four [persons are suffclent for drawmg 'Infe enoe erson I mgcommon antentlon of othe d shared common intention In cau ‘M rle anpratap has caused Inju V a smg 7 Inlurles to Langhal by appeltant Manrata 16 {As held by the High Court of Madhya radesh In the matter of Margiia @ Mangu (supra), In the absence of oplnron of the doctor Injury was no found senous In nature but rn the present case the doctor has cteart opined the nature of Injuries whrch were fatal to lrfe injunos found ove the bbdy of the complement are suffICIent for drawrng Inference tha e were fatal to lif m e d y p n‘ 1 hat, h y ~ Vs a PW s ; ‘ o ~ ' r t: e ' p d, ER d: ‘ i a o y ‘ t : 1 d e a d: p V t p e ‘ r‘ r pp t l' y: r t -y er apremaxn he evaence avaiable 0n recofd learned Additiona essaons Juge as conwcte apeant Manprata hnder Section 3G7 o he mdian Penai Code and oter aeiiants under Section 307/34 of th ndian Penal oe onvrclon o the aelants Is based on iegai cllnchlng and coent evrdenoe sustainable under the iaw. Learne Additiona Sessions Judge as not commited an megalit in convictin the appeiiants for’ the commisson of the aforesaid offenc s regards the question of senence the resent aellants wer arrested on 29 11 , bu at the time of filin of charge sheet i e 301 9 they were on bail they were conVIcted an sentenced Vlde judgmen dated 8691 and again teir sentences were susended vrde orde d ppt f t 9 As held by the pex our In te mater of Tara Nath in sura) e appeitants were in custody for substantial eriod therefer onSIdenng the subSIan.al eriod of cusoy, their period alread undergone an ine of s 10000.1- was found surcrent but in t resent case the appeans were not an custo for substanial perio hich may be considered sufficrent Imrisonment Even otherwrse th rial Court has taken extremely lenien Vlew In awardin the sentence o t t g f igorous Imprisonment for three years an rigorous imrisonment for tw 17 Aft ptg t d i i S d h d pn p f t h pp e I Cd Ct f ppi g d ! h t y y g i e 18 A t p pp e 1A 89 t g 0 ? d t h p r ated 12 7 91 it shows that the aeiants were :r jad or two manhs 1 A Ct h t k Sgh {p, th p e c t p td y d f R ff he p tlt dy t d w p e r d p o years i do not fin an further lenienc m e senenc 0 Consequenti, e aea ein evor o merit Is rae o be dtsmtsse nd It Is hereby ismisse ppeans No aan rata, aeant No otilal and appellant o4 Sunderaluare on bai, the sal surrende imediately belfore te onat Sessions Judge anendraarh ocessor-in—ofice for sewin remainin e. . Sd/— 'T.P.Sharma ’ r Judge é d y y th te 2 y th ppi bg dd f ibi t d' a dd Allt 1 M Pp pptl 3 M N l l y hl r ; m h Additi , Mg or its suf g g part of sentnce