!'('?!f'Jll)'?'"r'"m 11^\^ HI6H COURT OF CHH.4TTIS.©ARy,4T BIIASPUR Crimincii Appeai N<».53sof 2003 APPELLANT Masa s/o Iroa R/o '/<i 6udma 47 years P/S Kuturu distt /-'" ^*. \ (C.6.) RESPONbENT Versus S+ate of Chhattisgarh through p/s KuTuru distt &antewada (C.6.0 (CRMIN.AL APPP.AL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CO&6 OF CRI.WNAL PROCEDURE, 1973) Singte Bench: Hon'ble Mr, T.P, Shorwa. .1, Mr. Ratindn Mishra, counsel for 1+ie (ypellant. Mf*. Pankaj Shrivastava, Panei lawyer for- the State/reqaondent. ORAL JU&eMENT (Passed on 21st November, 2008} By this appeal, the oppellant has diallenged the tegc!ity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence da+ed 31.1.2003 passed by 1+ie Fourth Additionol Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bastar nt Jagdalpur, in Sessions Tria! No.262/2001 wher-eby the leamed Fou>'th Additmnal Sessions Judge after ho!di"g •t+se accused/appel'ant guHty for- co'nmission fff offence punishable undw Section 307 of the India" Pena! Code, sentenced hlm to undsrgo rigor'ous imprisonment for 6 years. 2. The judgmsnt is challenged on the ground •that without there being any ctinching and credible eyidence, the trial court hns conyicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned cmd thereby cowmitl-ed iltegnlity. 3. Cfflse of th®prosscytisn. m brisf; on 10.3,2001 iniured Chaindreya (PW-1) wcs present in his villnge- At about 5 p.m. w'fe of •rfie accused M'chha Ayatj came arfd told him that her husband is quarr'elfng with her tind requested to pacify the matter'. Injured Chaindreyn went to the accused nnd tried to pacify but accused assaulted him by axe over his neck and caused fffmir' -ris!T"%%. %-,f''^ injuries. F.I.R- Ex.P/1 was lodged by iniured Chaindreyes on 11.3.2001. He wos sent for medica! exam'nation to the Primory Health Centm, Bije^ur (Ex.P/7) wher®he was examined by br. A.S.Sendrom (PW-6) vide Ex.P/13 and he f"u"d one incised wound over his neck of 4" x 1" x l". Iniurv was danaerous m nature. Blood stained was recovered from the i"jur^d Chandreyn vjde Ex.P/2. Accused was taken into custody. He made disclosure stntement of a'<e yide Ex.P/3 and on the basis of disclosure statement. exe wos recovered at 1+ie instance of the accused/appellant yide Ex.P/4. Blood stained soi! and plain soil were seized on 11.3.2001 vide Ex.P/5. Spot map was prepared by Inyestigating officer vide Ex.P/8. Seized arl-icles were ^nt for che'nicnl examination vide Ex.P/9. 4. After recording the stotement of the complainant under Section 161 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure, 1973 and after complet'on of 'nvestigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial .Magistrats F!''st Class, &c"tewada who in turn committed ihe case to the Court of Sessions, Bastar at Jagdalpur from wher^ Fourth Additionn! Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jagda^uf received the same on transfer- for trial. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the oppe!!ant/accused, 1+>e prosecution excmined as many as 7 wilnesses. Statement of the accused/ appe'lant was recorded under Sectiort 313 of the Cr.P.C.. in whieh he denfed the circumstances eppear'ing against h'w. and fnnocence and fatse impiicatio" is pleaded. 7. Lecrned Fourth Additiona! Sessions Jue^e after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respect've parties, conyicted and sentenced the accused/flippetlant as aforementioned. 8. I hoye heard Mr. Ratindna Mishra, counse.1 for •the appellant and Mr. Pcnknj Shrivostava, Pane! hwyer for the Stnte/req)o"dent and perused the Judgment impugned <md record of •ftie. triol court. 'v 9. Learned counse! for the appeliant submits 1+iat without there being cSinching and credibl®evidence, the tr'in! court has convicted a"d sentenced the accused/appellmt as aforementioned ond thereby committed illegcfit". 10. On the other hcLnd. judgwent impugned is supported on behoJf of the State/resDondent. 11. Injury over the neck of injured Chaindreya is not disputed. Even otherwise atso established by the evidenceof Chaindreya (PW-1), Korsa Sonu PW-2) and Dr. A.S.Sendram PW-6) who has examined the injured Chaindreya and has stated that on 11.3.200i on exomination he found one incised wound over th-e "eck of Chai"dr'eya of 4" x l" X I" vide Ex.P/13. Iniury was dangerous in nature. 12. As ('egar'ds the coiTSp!icity of the accused/appel!ant in the crime in question, Chaindreya PW-1) has stnted that accused is ths person n+io has caused injury over his neck. Defence hcs cross-examined these witnesses at iength, but defence has not been able to eliclt onyl+iing in their cross-examinatiori to discard their testimony. Statement of the c<>mp!ain<mt inspires confidence ar>d sufficient for war'rant conviction. 13. .After appreciatmg the evidence ayailable on record, the trial court has convicted the e^petlcint for the offence punishable under Sectfon 307 of -the India" Pena! Code and sentenced h'm to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 yenrs. Sentence imposed upon the oppellant is not disproportionate. 14. In this case, the accused/appella"t wns in custody since 13.12.2001 and he has con'pleted the sentence wwrded by the triat court. I do not find any substance in the appea!. 15. In the result, the appeal being dewid of mer-it is liable to be dismissed ond it is hereby dismissed. 16. In yiew of the aboye, M.(Cri.)P.No.l629/03 stands disposed of. E/- SAI- ,.Stoav^a '" judse