C^-^-\c\^o^ APPEAf OF Pl^ISONER it, w^^sia^^^^..^ i'atlier's Name- r^AMt.-^^ <^--c^1 .tt. CF0000067524 l-f^TTT-^f^gSt- ^sidei<e-^^yT^-erf-T^^-^.3nsrA8c":--^-€s-^;:-,- Crinic No.-^-g^-/g^--Policc S(;i(it7ii-^^^^—S.c.ssioii•rrial No.--^?-:»^/-^ Seiiteiiced t6---/------------^s~-3?^-:-^T^^^.0^<)ri------G-t-^ ~S-0'7"'a5T[;5"^5-^s-—by-^^-^F-^-y^5^)^- Seiitenced to- Ucider section i\. '^GT ^^^-^^ ^^.T^SS^C It is explained to the Prisoii,er tliat iflw states or wishes (o be represented by lcgal practitiorier tlie A.Rpellc'ite Court wilt not proceed with the base for seven days iinless the legal practitioner iippears. IC llie-legal •prEictitioiier does ilot vvisli-to-be-i-epTgs'entecl by tegal practitioiier tlie court rnay proceed at once ,;he case and will not be obliged to giye a lifiiring to any leg;il practitioner ric?slT6uldii^peai\ V^ofJudRihei '^^.-L^..^i^-^.\:^S3&s&^^^^L 2. 3:. Date Bl^ftRRlieatton.Ry^cciri Dafebii'tvlticjE^^^fefattffil Date'^3!T%lTiKKK§Rea^sefit 4. Wliether^Re?pnsone?:wishes;tdberepresentedornot.-Yes/^ 5. 'WhetlierT'heJuc]gmentCo|^ancil1mgrcssl(cp()rl (>!"!'iicG<isct];is givuii io appciiairi/'Gotinselor ol' 'jth^apRe!lahl ')^A, . No.. -crr •f^3?^TT&-^^?^T Cohfiiwd'in'-N-^---.^--^^^^2)-.) ni|^p3-y^^t^--- No-&^^---------,fe^^^aIcd4-;-^^5:::20u^'^S^, Forwarded to the'CHIEYJUDICIAL.MAGISTRATE -—-^-ttSUtt-^^- tffaather (o thc proper Appellate Court. ^-^y^-T- -fS^fsT^X^^^' la M^^J No.-^3-N^'T'<?--yy-7-!-Qated-^-20(^-^--—7--7,"7"-, ;^i^t^^^4i^-/^^^^^-^A4^ <y Date oI'rece^lF??Ppeff?y?'-e(TTri^— 1 . i:is,..ir^Si^-:!? ;ft KVfSl:®y %, (P.T.O.) 1^,^ 'n y ^ "X APPELLANT: CTn Jail) HI6HCOURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH. BILASPUR Criminat ApDeal No, 194 of 2006 Podiyami Hirma ©Hidmo, Madiya, S/o Taka, Madiya, Aged about 46 years. R/o . iVietcyu!, P.5. Kctskaiycn, Distt. Dantewada (C.6.) RESPONDENT: Versus State of Ghhattisgarh {Criminat appeal under 5ectiori 3J4 (2) of the Codeof Criminal Procedure. - 1973} Miss Scnaeeta AAishra, counsel for the cppetlont. Mr. Ravindrs Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. SingleBeych: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL JU&6MENT (13-10-2u08) 1. This appeal is directed against •rtie judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 1-3-2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar at Ja9dalpur in 5essions Trial No.535/2005 whereby leamed Sessions Jud9e after botding the oippetiant guilty of sttempting to commit murder, conyicted him under Section 307of t'ne I.P.C. and sentenced to underqo R.I. for five years. 2. Conviction & sentence of the appellant is challenoed on the ground that the appeitant has not caused aiy injury with motive or nnens rea, he has csscujited only one injury which was not fatal and 1tie prosecution has failed to establish the crime against "ttie accused under Sectjon 307 of the I.P.C. £aseof 1+ie prosecution, in brief, is that injured Sanni Bai p'W-1), sister of the accused/cppellant, is residentof Viliage Paralmeto, Police Station Kodenar, Distt. Bastnr.- Prior to 2-1^-2005; -t+ie accused took the dau^iter IA r-i'1 ^9 of Sanni Bai to his house at villaae AAetopat, P.5. totekalyan, Distt. Bastar, he wants to mar'ry her wi1+i his son. Injured Sanni Bai went to the house of the accused and objected. and came back to her villaae. On 5-11-2005 at about 6 p.m. when 1+ie injured was at her house, 1+ie accused came wi1+i axe and assaulted her on her stomach, as a result of which her intestine came out of the injurv. gudhram & Bijjo had seen 1fae incident and thsy took her to Primary Health Centre, Kitepal. Thereafter, she wss shifted from Kiiepal to Moharani 1-lospital, Jagdclpur whsre she lodged Dehati Nalishi on 7-11-2005 yide Ey.P-l. 5pot map was prepqred by the Investiaatino Officer vide Bx.P-2. Btoodstained soil & Dlain soil were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-4. Injured 5anni Bai was examined by Dr. P.L. Meria (PVi/-4) vide Ex.P-5 who found one incised wound over abdomen 'm the size of 4" x 5", her intestine burst out from the wound. She was ooerated in the District HosDita! where she was admitted for treatment. The axe was seized from the accused vide Ex.P-3 and the same was examined yide Ex.P-6. On 1tie basis of Dehati Natishi Ex.P-1, F.I.R. was todged vide Ex.P-7. 4. After recordina the statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and compteting inyesti9ation, chccrqe sheet was fited in tiie Court of Judicial AAagistrate, First Ciass, Jagdalpur, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jcgrfalpur where the trial was conducted. 5. In ordef to prove 1+ie 9uitt of the accused/appeliant, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him.and pteaded innocence & false implication. 6. I have heard tearned counset for the parties and perused the impugned iudament as also the materiatavailableon record. 7.~ Learned counsel for the oppetlant aibmits that the accused/flippellont is bro1+ier of iniured Sanni Bai cmd there is no occasion oii' motive to the oacused to cause any injurv te •ttie injured. The alteged| OTjurv was not "(""?^i^ '^ li8^L. '~>. dangerous to life. The prosecution has not proyed the offence against the fl^peilont. Lastly, leamed Counsel also submitted that theappellant is in custody from 11-11-2005 and completed abouf three years of jail sentence, only one injury has besn caused to the injured, therefore, three years iail sentence would bs sufficient in the instant cose. 8. On the other hand, the Judament is suppoi'ted on behalf of 1ne State/ respondent ond it is submittedthat theqspellant who is residentof Villa9e Metapai, P.5. Katekalyan, came to ViSlage Paralmeta,Police Station Kodenar i.e. the village of injured SannifBai ond assaulted her with axe over her abdomen as a result of which her intestine canne out of the injury and she was admittect in the^hospitai for 13 days, after suraical treatment she was able to move. The Dr'osecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Sentence awarded to the aDDellant is neither excessive or disproportionate. 9. Injury oyer tfae body of Sonni Bai is not much disputed on behalf of the appellomt and othsrwise, it is estabiished from the evidenceof Sannt Bai (PW-1), Budhram (PW-2) & Dr. P.L. er\a (PW-4). 5onni Bai (PW-1) has stated in her evidence -that she received iniury over her abdomen, Budhram <& Bijjo took her to the hospital, finally she was shifted to Mdiarani Hopsitat, where she was admiftedand she lodaed the report. Budhram (PW-2) has supported 1+ie version of Sonni Bai (PW-1). Dr. P.L AAeria (PW-4) who bas examined 5anni Bai has s-tated in her evidence that she had examined Sanni Bai and found one incised wound over her- abdomen on ri9ht lumber region in -Hie size of 4" x 5". intestine came out from the injury and she wois admitted in ttie surgical ward. The injury|wos grieyous in nature and dangerous to life. Therefore, the injur/ sustained by Sanni Bai is established. , In order to connect the aippellant with the crime in prosecution has examined evewitness and the injured witness. (PW-1), Sister of the appelignt, has stated in her evidence oppeilant is her elder brother, he had taken her daughter fo question, tKe Sanni Bdi •that the house with h'is li a view to motf'ry her daughter with his son, whereupon she went to 1tie houseof theQppellantat Village Metapal and objected, -riiereaftep, she came back to her house; after 2-3 dnys, the appelioait came to her house with axe and assaulted her over her abdomen <md she feil down. Wi'tness Budhram<& Bijjo we.re preseoton 1tie spotand they hdd seen the incident. Thereafter, she was shifted to the hospital. 11. Budhram (PW-Z) has stated in his evidence that on 1+ie fateful day, Bijjo & 5anni Bai were setting in front of his house, at that time, the appellant came to his house hoiding axe in.his hand and assaulted Sanni Bai over her abdomen ond after throwirig the axe he ran awuy. Thereafter, •riiey took Sanni Bai to KilepaLhospital and finoilly, she was shifted to Maharani Hospital/Jagdalpur. . 12. Sanni Bai (PW-1) has admitted in her cross-examination that there was no previous enmity between her ond theoppellont, she is ready to compromise with the appeltmt. She has olso admitted that itie appellant has assaulted her only once. Defence has not su99ested a1ythin9 thatthis witness has falsely implicated theaccused. 13. Budhram (PW-2) has also admitted in his cross-examination tiiat the appellant has assaultsd injured Sanni Bai. In cross-examination of the prosecutioh witnesSes.defence has nbt been able to bring anything to discrediftheir testimony. Their testimony is supported by Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-1 ond the medical eyidence, which is sufficientfor placing reliance upon their testimony. 14.In this case, -tlie appellcnt came from his vitlage to the viltage of injured i Sanni Bai with a?<e and assculted Sonni Bai. The evidence of *heu prosecution witnesses to this effect is sufficieht for drawtn9|inferenoeo€] mens rea/motive for the commission of offence. Injury suslxuned by Snnn|^! Bai was dongerous to ti-fe <xnd as a result of -t+ie injury, her injtestine came| out which shows thegravity of the injury. After appreciatihg |the widen<:&:| available on record, leamed Sessions Judge has convitted the apj:>el|aiT|j under Section 307 of the T.P.C. ond ?entenced him to undergQ^ IR.I.EFo?-%i years. Learned Sessions Jud9e has rightly convicted & sentenced the appeilant. Sentence awarded to the appellant is neither excessive nor un.just. 15. Consequently, there is no substance in the appeal, same is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed. . SdA — T^R Sharma Judge ir t- iil.; T:F