W 113175 gig-No LT) a7/6W mmmzgém $37mm APPbLL&N'l‘ v4! 1‘ ~ nnana rnnum M§ru1¥ U&1V 1 1 b .08 AUU'T a is directed. against the judgment of 2. nus cmmmai appeaJ 3—2004 paseed by the ; SeSSionS Judg6, Bastar Jagdaipm‘ in ST No. 46G] 20U3 whereby the appellant has 136611 comm: smltenced to undergo KJ. I dsfaun; 01 paynmnt OI 11116, to Case of the prosecution, in bnet, 1s that 1n the mtervenmg at about 12-1215 hrs, the complainant L5. night 0f 24-25‘11 Mav, 2003 Vlcum nan gon€ to attand the caji of nature Where he saw the appellant who had gone mare for flshing. appellant as to What 11a assaulteci camplamajlt Amt right nbs and Umreby attt: Kosa son of Bhima Mariya aged ahnnf 44 wranrc Onr‘n‘nnhn‘n MIQ7H111~1 resment 01 vmage- bailauurgura Bodhghat, Jagrjalpur, RS Bodhahat Distt. Basia}: (GG. ‘ .LA. vwu ruuv" n opau:' Cu 1- p1111auiSgaIn r” 1 “ 1 ted under §ect10n 5UY oi LHU. Emu 3r '7 years w1th a flne 01 Ks, IUUU/ -, 1n, further undergo Ki. tor one year. The V1ctun asKed the was doing, at that time the appellant itpal Singh (PAN. l) by the spear over ms mpted to murder nun. Un hearmg hls mm 00 m } } ‘ \ ‘ \ t ‘ 1 t \ ‘ 1% hUN tiLJL 3w DHJKL‘VHKA NuhHKA: J. t t i \ ‘ \ ‘ Smt. Meenu Banexjee, Advocate tor the appellant Shri Neeraj Mehta, Panel Lavwer for the b‘tate. conviction and order ol sentence dated o- $houts, TVagraj (RW. 3) a11€i Vikram {P.W. 1) reached them who took: the victim to hospitai and tn lodged. The compiainant as sent for medical examination to 1 him alld gave injury report cf Ex. P—S wherein it has been mentioned suSt'ained a stab injury on hi3 right of ‘2 ‘Viz X 1 cm, the depth of which coma ntinuous secretion of b10061. He adv1se€1 4 rwhere Dr. VK. Jha (RW. 4) examined Maharani Hospital, Jagdalp c accused fleci from there. The report was uihat Amritpal Singh had hvpoconérium‘ region of Size not be. measured due to co immeoiate surgery. stigation, charge sheet was flied under 4. After compieting mve Section '30'7 of LRC, in the Court of Chief Juc‘licial Magistrate, Jagciaipur who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Juoge. 5. Learned triai Court oi Jha (RW. 4) anti on the ha: injury was causedfby the a} Aniritpal Singh anti furtm complainant as aiso the e) and P.W.3 Tvagraj has he involvement of the accuser and sentenced the appeflant 6. Learned counsel for t‘ offence spear was selzed or 1 the basis of the statement of Dr. V.K. $is of injury report EX. P6 held that the ‘ )pellant with intention to cause death 01 :r relying upon the statement of tne e—witnesses P.W.1 Vikram Singh Gnllar 1d that the prosecution has established L in the crime in question and convicted as mentioned above. 1e app‘ellant submits that the Weapon of 1 the basis of memorandum of EX. P—i tWG montns aiter me incident and meraore, U15 recovew is of 110 consequence. The fact is That ths spew“ waS taken out by U16 v1 racorckd on 26—7-2063 ie. gum mmsan anc‘i {rm sams wa$ given in me ‘pouce stauon by one of the friends of the Victim. She further argued mat me prosecufion lliilclént TO CauSE (168.111 1D. m€ Ol‘diDaI'V course of nature anti, therefore, offence under Section 307 of LRC. is not made out and the offence, if any, does not travel beyond Section 3Z4 OI LliLfKehance is place 154). '/ . Un the other hand, leaf unpugnect judgment. 5. 1 have heard the learner the records as aiso the impug 9. KW. ‘l Amritpal Singh, the inimy and who has iodgt of which, the FIR of EX. P- stated that 1n the night of the of nature to the pond. He sa Ilshmg. He asked the appelk appeuant assaulted him With whereupon ‘lyagraj, Vikarln a wustamed by me Vlctim was s has ianea to establish that the injury t on Ganga Ram —v- State ($68 Cri.L.J. ned counsel tor the State supported the 1 counsel tor the parties. i have perused neci Judgment. who is complainant and has sustained .d Dehati Nahsh of Ex. P—7 on the basis 6 has been registered has categoricaiiy incident, he had gone to attend the cal‘l W the accused there who was going for nt Where he was going, whereupon the spear on his stomach. He raised alarm nd Rainesh came to the spot. They took him to Maharani Hospitai and Vikram Singh Gm anti PW ' of 1:116 incident haw con‘o‘box 3316i haw statea that 011 hre reached to The Spot and the @Way. They tried i0 chase hi ‘ fume ‘Witnssses, th€ defence which makes the statemenis mfrehahie afid in the consic‘tex haS not comhlit'ted anV mega these Wimesees 311d homing crime in question. i0, Now the seeoni‘i questio victim wae caused by the an death. To arrive at the eonciu t0 cause death depends; upon hociy over which the injury W injuiy was calmed. in the inei caused the injury over stoma (RW. 4) has examined the Vic the morning. According to th witness, Aimitpal Singh sus hypochondriuni region of size the accused fled from the piace, PW. 1 . ‘3 Tyagraj who are the eye-witnesses ‘ated the statement of the compiainant aring shouts of Amm‘t‘pal Singh, they v saw that the accused was running n1. in the cross-examination of theses has not been able to ehcit anything of these Witnesses untinstworthy or ed opinion of this Court, the niai Court Luty in relying upon the statements of the invoivement. of the. appeiiant in the L1 is whether the injtny sustained by the peiiant with an intention to cause his sion Whether the accused had intention the Weapon of offence, the ‘place of the as caused and the force with which the ant case, the appeiiant with a spear has :h, a vitai part of the body. Dr. Via. tim on 25-5—2003 at about 5.50 am. in e injury report of Ex. P—S given by this tamed penetrating injury on his right of ’2 i/é x i cm, the depth ofwhich could xl—Hc-zz m , WA MO locfgzgoq mar WE‘VE a; e 1110i be measured b€caus€ of} contihuous s‘ecrgtion of b10061. Exit of ‘ ‘ @is injury was 011 the iumb‘: 1" region of the stomach which was aiso 631" siza of '2 1/2 cm x 1 cm. Thus iooking to the injury that was caused on the person of Amritpal, itris evkknt that the appeiiaJJt causeci injiiry‘ by the deadly weapon epeax over vitai part of the body stomach Wm): such a force that the spear pierced through stomach of Victim Ann‘itpaf and; therefore, thevg‘onviction of the appeiiant under Secrion 7307 of LEG. for attempting to cause death of the complainant .£ 4 “‘. : A .. . Amntpai cannot be faulted. 11. So far as the judgment in the matter of Gangg Ram (supra) rehed upon by the counsei for the appeiiant’is concerned, in the above judgment aiso in para 6 and '7, it has been heid that it is not necessary that the injury ca abie of causing death should have been actuai‘ty inflicted. if the inj ‘y is actuahy inflicted, the nature of the injuly may he of some co " whether the accused had th intention of causing death Liability for the offence under Section 3U? of LPC. wm depend upon the circumstances of each case d e mmry which the Victim sustained in a particuiar case. in 6 case under Section :50! or LEG” important consideration is i1 tention or knowiedge of the accused and The ‘ _ the circumstances under ich the offence Was committed. intention of the assailant ca also he gathered from the nature of the Weapon used<and the par s of the body where the injuries are n 1 h XI-HC-22 9 ' m W.KB...‘M’‘H‘i 7 M 200 1 m WWW WIW émrrmm " at the injui‘v was caused hv a deadly infxicieti. Looking to th€ fact waapon Spgar over viiai‘orga’l stomach and the ‘im'ury was of such a ‘ penetrated through the stomach, me I.P.C. has rightly? been held to be made. grievous nature that the spe offence untier Section 307 01 out. u f no substance in the appeai. The same 1‘2. in the result, there 13 {iesewes to be dismissed and A s it is aismlssea Sd/— DmmDRA msrmA‘ji Judge M§W