sn^i je\ [<;•)(+ rTSff 3TT^?T ?ti^ll=h SiWlit 3=5iT ^WW^, W^\WIG, Klrtl+fy ^W^l vhW4, ••••••••—-•—••••- •••--•••••••••-"••-^200 3II^?T T13TO (^afgal^ET) ?^nw(to3ii^r 8B : HOM'BLB SHfa DHIREWDRA MI8HRA. J. AFPELLAST 1. Ma|aoj Kumar, Son ofBh^chaad Satnami, ag^d 24 years Sttff^fl "o- 2. Ral Vs. esh Kuinar, son of Nathooram Satnaini, d about 21 yeare, Bopi residents of Boriya, P.S. Berala, Di^tfc Dm^ (C.Q.) RESFONDBH-T 26-7-2007 Th^ Batela Advodate Shri Rajesh Jaia, Shri PradeepTSingh, '2. The appeUants have dated 11-5-2000 passed in Additional Sessions Judge, guilty of ofFence punishable ofI.P.e.,has sentenced each| pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and uadergo R.I, for two months. 3. The case of the comp]amant Baraturam atias) Mohrenga to his viU^e appeUaats near rivulet pf ft^ Sword over bis head an.d otti^r i*l'4l^f<4N TTF1^f ^1^[3l' <r«l+^R ^sffiiiran^r State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. la, Distt. Dui^(C.G.) for the appellants. < ~ Paijiel Lawycr for the State. pr^ferred this appeal ^aiast the judgiaent S.T.f No. 35/97 whereby fhe leamed pem6tara after holdiag fhe appeUants ttnder Section 307 read with Section 34 of fhein to undei^o R.I. for 5 years, to ^n default of payinent of fine, to further prose4ution se4ution, in brief, is fhat on 21-1-1997, Baratya Satnami was returaiag froia Bc|nya at about 19.30 hrs. when the (ohrenga assaiilted Tiim by Lathi and parts of body with iutention to cause 3^^ -i{\'-{l<yi^, wf\V16, fsldW^i tllNrtl **<!* •••••-—------••—•---—--• ^ 200 an^?r iiara; (1cif'j»i<a) 2_ 3Ilt?[.TT K;-)icb WIT3ITOI *11* sa TOiWHfCTsn^T his deaui. The coiaplainant the hands as a result of aniputated and he becaiae accused persons left him't tridd to ward off the assault by Iiis both whieti, his thumb of the right haud was aad feU on fhe ground. The thin^iag that he is dead. After regaming WtUCG imdonscious tbe vanoius consciousness, he retucaed to.i village Sarpanch Devcharaa, aud thereafter he went to lodge| P-1, Crime No. 156/1997 for Section 34 of I.P.C. ~\pas examination where P.W. 7 Dr. injuiy report of Ex. P-24, sustaihed 12 iiyurifcs on hand, wrist, forearm and chest| 4. Leamed counsel for fhe the appellants is based ou Dr. V.P. Agrawal (P.W. 7). He stateinent of Baratqra, it would| incident, he rushed to fhe wiU^ers which demoustrates sustained any grievous m;iuiy incideat to the vUl^era eve4 statement of Dr. V.P. categoricalty stated fhat none o|l was sufficient to cause deatb stattiaent ftdrtlier vill^' ds GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50.UUO. ^>Ii4fo'sft^ ^\*iV\\ ^ fe(^ <F»i<-^I< ^aiRmsn^i vulage and nan-ated the incident to A^faanu Gadanya and Kotwar Nirauram. Ireport, On the b^is of the report Ex. b-fifeuce under Sectiou 307 read with refeistered. He was scnt for inedical |S?.P. Agrawal examiaed hua aad gave a<j'conling to which, t&e complainaat parts of the body ie. hcad, face, ^ppellants submits that couvictiou of of injured witness Baratiya and submits that fix>m perusal offhe |be evident that imiuediateiy after the ^e aad narrated fhe iacident to the thc fact fhat the injured had not he was able to run aad narrate the after the iacident So far as the I'al (P.W. 7) is concerued, he has fhe injiuies sustamed by the injured however cumulative efFect of aU XI-HC—78 SfS^f JK\ ft-li'* 'a'TT 311^?I snii'* ^SSf ^11*11^, 8>TTl<H*lfi, Rlcl|<-l^< -s Cy ^^ is.i/^60 IffWn" (b<41sb •^ 200 an^TT Tra^ (i^I-i'sdta) T^ITW ^ifta-CT^T iujuries could be dangerous t|3 by this witiiess in his report these two witoesses, ofFence He further submits fhat the iAi his vital oigan aad fhe offenc|e I.P.C. 5. On fhe ofher haad, impugned judgment. 6. I have heard leamed record. 7. P.W.3 Baraliya, the iuj|u he was retuming fix>m viUag4 he found both fhe accusedl stopped liim aad Maaoj Rajesh took out a sword iiyunes of sword over tus using his hand as a result djl amputated, He also sustain^ thereafter, he became uncoi regainiag consciousness, he incident to the vffl^ers. Thij lengfh on behatf of the able to hnpeach the credibi) examiaing him at lengfh aad assayitea hedd .w defealce, ;redibipily chi*<i<Ti<fti +i)+i<nl* TT\fs'<;l <^i^$i< ^; 3ifgiT STI^I Ufe. This fact has not beeu inentioued )f Ex. P-24. T'hus, firoia fhe evideace of does not fall under Sectkin 307 of I.P.C. jured did not sitEfer any bony iiilury ou does uot travel beyond Section 326 of leajned counsel for fhe State supports fhe cotinsel for fhe parties. I have perused the iuj|ured coiaplamant has stated that while Mohrenga after attendin^ his patient, persons staading uear rivulet. They *nd wifh a lathi on his head, thereafter started assaulting. He sustaiaed and cyes. He ward off fhie assault by which, ftuunb of fhe right haatt was ^a. fi'acture iti|ury over bis wrist and liscious and feU on the ground. After t'ushed to fhe village aad narrated fhe ife witness has been cross-exammed at ;, however, the defence has not been of this witness even atler cross- lie has struck to his version given ia fhe XI-HC—78 3^ET '^Wli^<1, ^ST^WKs, Rldl+fy ^TOcTT *N|sb •••-•-•••••••••••••••--•-•••••--•••••--^ 200 an^?t Traw (ipi^g^g) 4 sn^i ?? R'<i+ ~Q^\ 3^?T Si+11cb ?^OTWHfe( 311^1 <tii<4^<fli ^l^' Tf,1^x£l'<f^i^R ^siRitian^r examuiation-m.-cluef. Stateiaetit of fhis witiiess is diily corToborated by prontpuy lodged F.I.R. ofE|x. P-1 as also fixiin fhe iiyuiy report of Ex. P-24 as P.W 7 Dr. V.P. figrawal who has examined fhe iajured has foiuid correspondu^ uy^tries over the person of this injured witness. Therefore, the findijig of the trial Court fhat both the appeUants were involved ia as|saulting the coinplaiaant is proper. So far as the second ai^;uiaen|t advanced by the leamed counsel appearfag for the appeUants ^hat the injuries present over the vital oi^aa i.e. head are inuscle de|ep and as such, were not grievous and there is no evidence that the ijijuries sustained b^Iuin over his head were sufBaent to cause his'd^ath ia ordinaiy course is concemed, I ana unable to accept the ai^utaeut advanced by the kamed coimsel iu this reganl because fiTQin manifesffy clear fhat both fh^ fhe coiaplairiaat near secluded the evidence of P.W. 3 Baratia, it is / appellaats were waiting for arrival of / place armed wifh sword and lathi and as soon as he reached the sipot, tfafiy started assaiuting him. The iajured could soiaehow escapi^d lethal blow by using his haad, as a result ofwhich he sustained gtievous injuries over his wrist and right thumb, fherefore, fi-Dia the w|eapon of ofifence used by fhe present appeUants, the manner in coinplainant and the injuries which the appeUaats assaulted the suslained by the complamant over his head, the intention ofthe appeplants ofcausing dcafh can be inferred, 'T'herefore, the coiut below }ias uot coHimitted any iUegality by reaching to fhe conclusion t(iat the app&Uaats committed offenoe li XI-HC—7S ~3wf .ijl^lc^, ^Tfly'KS, Rlc<il<-t^< 6/.^--M&, l5o|^bo£> ^tK^I (hMI=b •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••"•••••••••••••••••••••••-^ 200 311^1 TfSV (^S-yifWI) SII^F ?ff R-lj't] TWI 3lA?[ Shliqi ?Egiw;Bf?a 3ii^i cbl^l^f'4lTl 'qP:RTf ^'f^T^ <P>1^|< ^sffgqaii^r '-;.- ?) uader Section 307 ofI.P.C. I persons are young boys of 24) ought to have considered the4' senteiice, is conceraed, loo]p4 has been coininitted by the proper sentence has been 8. Thc appeal beiug devoid) aad it is accordingly dismissed|. 9. It is stated that-appeUaBJi is canceBed. He is directed forthwith for undei^oiag the phe ofher aiguinent fhat the accused I years and, therefore, the Court below case syinpatheticaUy ia iaaposing jail )]p4g to the inanner in which tlie offen.ee lappeUants, I am. of fhe opinion tfaat uap^sed by the Court betow. of substence is liable to be disinMsed :UaBJt No. 1 Mano] is on bail. His bail bond 1 tcr; surrender before --the trial Court re|Diauung sentence. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra < Judge l-i^. ,/N- .\'-