Befbre Hj.gh Cburt of Madhya Pradesh at ^atoaJp^r Griminal ^ppeal NO« \<:b.v?. . •/1996 1 ./" ^pellgpt. * Vicky'Rai^alias Ajeet Rai^^tss^e^, ^^•-<^.^-— • . "^ _ ^ _ -< . ^ ^? . . :- :"wi^?i -w s&n...^^1.^ ^,,-.....A^^^. 1 l7S. &. $ ^^.^- I ^ s/o Rem Chandra ^ai» aged atout 18 years, r/o Mohan Nagar» P.S. Mohan Nagar^ Dur^ Tah. apd Dlstt .Durg "^ •?). -Versus<» a State of ^adhya Pradesh M£MO GF. APPSA^ (U/s.374 Cr.&.C ) .y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISeAIIH AT BXLASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinteer Diwalcer) CrimSnal Appeal No. 1015 of 1896 APPELLANT VERSUS RESPONDENT Vlcky Rai @ Ajeet Rai State of Maddya Practesh ^ ^/ Shri V. <3. Tamaskar, counsel for the appellant, Shri Vivek Sharma, P.L. for th@ State. CRIMINALAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 f21 OFTME CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 3UDGMENT (21.06.2011) This appeal is directed agawist the impugned Juc^ment and order dated 20.04,1996 passed by Thirct Adclltional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. ^ of 1^5 convjcting the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 324of IPC and sentendng him to pafy fine of Rs. 10^000, in defautt of payment of fine to undergo rigorous Impnsonment for one year. 2, Brief facts of the case are that on 14.09.3.994, at aboiA 11.30 a.m. the appetlant is said to have assaulted the complainant Sunil Kumar (PW-3) by m^ns of knlfe as 9 result of which he sustained irfluries on his (tiesi and stomach. FIR (Ex.P-3) was lodged on 14.09,1994 itselfand based on this FIR, offence under Section 307 of IPC was registered against the appetjant. After completion of investigationy Chaffan was flled on 17.11.1994 for the said offence. /"'^^ ^ -^.- 3, So as to hold the accused/appellant gullty, prosecuticm has examined 10 wjtnesses in support of M case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under sectton 313 of the Code of Cnminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelted against him and pleaded his innocenoe and false impjtcation in the case. 4. After hearing the par^es the trial Gourt has though acqultted the accused/appeltant of the offence under Section 307 of IPC but convlcted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 324 of JPC, hence, the present eppeal, 5. Contention ofShrj Tamaskar, learned counsel appearlng for the appellant is that even (f the entlre ca% is taken as te the offence under Section 324 of IPC is not made out agatnst the appellant. He submits that some dtspute was going on between the victlm and some third person but unfortunately/ as the appellant had tried to intervene the inattar and settle the dispute, he has Iseen falsely Impllcated. Me submtts that at the relevant time the appellant was a young boy of 17-18 years and jmposition of exorbitant fine amount ©fRs. 10/000 js too harsh to him. 6. On the other hand supporttng the impugrwd judgment It has been argued by Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State that the appellant had caused two sniunes on the victim that too on the vltal part of his body t,e. diest and stomach. He submits that the Court below has alreacty taken a very lenient vlew by not awarding any Sail sentence to the appellant and therefore the appeal does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused tie matenal available on record induding the judgment impugned, /^:"f9k l^^j \~'^y 1 -^- { -3- 8. The vlctim Sunil Kumar (PW-3) jn his court statement has stated that at the relevant tlme he was a student of Class XII and at about 11 a.m. when he was gojng to school^ saw the appeliant and hls friend Sunjl Mishra near the house of Sandeep and at that tlme some dispute was going on between appellant and Sandeep. He asked his filend Sandeep to accompany him to the school to whlch the appeltent t@ld htm that he js having talk wlth Sandeep and why he Is interfertng in the same. Thereafter some altercation took place between him and the appellant and in the meanwhjle the frlend of the appellant Sunil Mishra started beatlng him and the appeHwt took out a knife from the dlckey of his scooter ar»dcaused hlm two injuries on his stomach. He has stated that when hjs brother Satish (PW-4) tried to rntervene the matter he too was assaulted by the appellant and hlsfrierwl Sunil Mlshra as a result of whlch his hand got fractured. Dr. M. C» Mohnot (PW-7) who had medically examlned the vjctim vide Ex. P-10 has found following two injurles on his body:- i) Inclsed wound 1" X V4" on the teft part of the chest, ji) Inclsed wound 1H X V4" on the left part of the stomach. Satish Kumar Goyal (PW-4), the eye wltness to the incidenl: has supported the prosecution case and has c^egoncalfy deposed as to in what manner the victlm was assaulted by the accused/appellant. Further on the ba^s of memorandum of the appetlant Ex. P-6, seizure (Ex.P-7) was made and human blood was fx>und on the knife vide F.S.L. report Ex*P- 22. 9. Thus from the evidence as adduced by the prosecution, the offence under Section 324 of IPC Is apparently made out against the appellant and findtngs recorded by the trtal Court convicting and sentencing the accuseCl/appeHan^ being well ^. ik-^F^i ^ v<i^|^" -' -^ ^ '""^ ^-^/ ~4 - reasoned ones/ do not caH for any interference »n the judgment impi^ned. 10. Appeal thus does not appear to have any substancQ in it. It is accordingly dismtssed. ' Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge