\ CF0000057934 XII-189(JaiI)CJ.P.R-/9-94 e^.^ ^dt^s — 3 ^ ' 1^1 ^ , APPEAL OFPRISONER ^o ^'07/5-1__ ^ Name <^-^ /-N._ 'S^^^BSS^—,^. ^.-, ..;; ^^••^ Father's name ^tc-)icEU^ i y^\ f^. Residenc^'^:fc^^~r-.^i^--7p^^-<Age JS^ c^T ( ^-«^1 ( - -?<£L|^) 1^-?^ -< CSTQ^f^ Sentencedto ,„^p^-^^.^^-^^ p^ ^^, 1) . "(^^^ Under Section "^Q'7 ^rr p-^ OTQ-Q_."by.^io-l<5:ft:Z? L<^^<4 ':^^rr^-^^T.^,^(gi ^^-<0 j^^j^ -^^/Sf^ ^ _ _'" ' It is explained fb the prisoner tMat ifhe states he wishes to be represented by a legal practitioner the appellate Court will not proceed with the case for sevendays unless the legal practitioner appears earlier. Ifthe legal practitioner does not appear within seven days he may not heard at all if the Prisoner states that he does not wish to be repre- seiited by legal practitioner the court may prcceed at once with the case and will not be obliged to give a hearing to my legal practitioner who should appear. Date of Application for copy of Judgement "-^ 2 - Date on which copy received 3 Date on which Appeal sent .^' '-f^-o-fzT "f^^j^ •^- <^-^ j ^i^ ^- ^--r1^4-' ^N'I <Lpl- f <--^-?-[7 -30 - ll< ^ 4 4 Whether the prisoner wishes to be represented or not. .No ^O^/J^J ^ 1Same" /^, ~; -^^ ^ ^ ^ ——~77. ^\ ^P" Confined in-iC-^|^T~--^T7ir' ^lu-f }wt-^mf^_^ n. ^^i "< i c>;r^rio^p?^rt rsr^TR^ u ^" r '3-f ej-?2') '-^Jf) ~\ No.€^^':7^<3^s/o^/^0jb Dated _3^_iLtA^SA^-^^- Forwarded: t^ the •^^3^-y-~:-5V\^^}^ •^^•:-^ ?^@]a^^^ ""^ v.^\ "' ^___ ^~7 ^-F^^TJ^"^ 'J" ^^-)? <2^-f c^t^ < ". to gether with a copy of judgemjent^F^der passed ilF th^fe case for favour of transmi- / "w^::>'^ ssion to the proper Appellate ,6ourt. ^ " ""--•(..67 . Date of receipt in ^QfScen., Sui CT^qJ-l^ ^ Date of receipt of record to accompany the^S. MemoofAppeal to the Appellate court No Dated 199 Forwarded to the \.A. Date of recelpt in Appellate court (P.T.O.) f'0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. IVIr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 1995 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Kunju alias Kunjram State of Madhya Pradesh Shri Shrawan Agrawal, counsel for the appetlant. Shri Neeraj Mehta PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (04.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.11.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 349/1992 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20.5.1992 FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by Chhedi (PW-2) who happens to be the father of the victim namely Rampyari (PW-5) alleging that on that day his daughter was brutally assaulted by the appellant who happens to be her husband. 3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused/appeltant the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment under challenge. 6. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that statement of victim Rampyari (PW-5) has not been supported by any other independent witness and even on the basis of medical report the accused/appellant cannot be convicted under Section 307 IPC. He submits that Dr. Ram Chandra Khilnani (PW-9) who medically examined the victim has stated in his evidence that no cut injury was found on the body of the victim. 7. Counsel for the respondenVState supports the judgment impugned and submits that looking to the nature of injury caused to the victim, the appellant has rightly been convicted under Section 307 IPC. 8. In her evidence, victim Rampyari (PW-5) has categorically stated that on the date of incident when she was in the field, accused/appellant came there carrying axe in his hand, abused her and gave an axe blow on her cheek and neck, on account of which she started bleeding and fell down. Thereafter the appellant left the place thinking her to be dead. Incident was witnessed by other witnesses namely Billu, Avasi, Aalika, Parethu and Jalova Bai. Dr. Habib (PW-7) who had examined the victim has found the following injuries on her body: (i) Incised wound in the right side of the neck in the size of 1 and 1/2 x 1 V2 inch; (ii) incised wound on the right cheek in the size of 3 x 1^ inch; (iii) incised wound on the left side of neck in the size of 1 inch x skin deep; (iv) wound on the left side of forehead in the size of 1 1/2 inch. Dr. Ram Chandra Khilnani (PW-9) had also found number of injuries in the mouth of the victim including fracture ofjaw for which surgery was performed and the victim was required to be hospitalized for —3— more than 15 days. Though Paltu (PW-1) and Upasi (PW-8) have not supported the case of the prosecution yet barring them other witnesses have duly supported the same. 9. Thus the aforesaid material available on record particularly the evidence of victim Rampyari (PW-5), Dr. Habib (PW-7) and Dr. Ram Chandra Khilnani (PW-8) and the injuries sustained by the victim, it can be very much gathered that the appellant was predetermined to cause such injuries to the victim which could be dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature. True, the injury sustained by the victim is not a decisive factor to base the conviction of the accused under Section 307 IPC but it is equally true that it is the injury sustained by the victim which reflects the intention of the accused in so doing, which in this case is writ large. Secondly, after causing injury to the victim, the accused/appellant who happens to be her husband in stead of shifting her to the hospital left the spot leaving her there to struggle between life and death which also shows that he was determined to see her dead in consequence of the injury inflicted by him. 10. In view of above, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Judgment impugned convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as mentioned above is maintained. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge c^