H113” CciiiRT (3F €HHA1TE$€$£QH K!” EIL§§$UR €:rim‘nmi An ea! Na,23§ f2”? 73mm . smwch Vndny Q/o Gnha Qgmy‘gr4gy' aged anon“? 5?) vear's Occunmbr'a Cumvafor‘, K/o magp Baganar“! Dam: Polka 5‘mticm Pair msH Verb!“ (fr) Ver5us‘ u '0 0* khhc ”=5 Fh ‘Thmvwk " " _'Pohca 5m‘ho P 5T? Karim (L Ev) (APPEAL, ‘umm aFrTmm 274m m: com: a? cpwww ppocmuaa 1973). A??ELLANT ‘ (In (faiif) RESPQNDEEMT H hie. Mr. T.P. 5harma‘ J) g ‘ Fraser‘s? .— Qhm Damnkayrf Pandev Advocg'l'o fnr +11» gnpe‘lnnf Sim Akhu Mushm Deoufv Government Advoca‘re for a‘ruTe/ resporcqem The asaAL mmwmw ’ (”eased or. Augus G Bv +ms a .al; fhe apneunn‘t Has challenged the leoali‘ry, validity and A prmr'Ie'W of The judgmen‘l‘ 9f tom/whom and m‘der 01" <en‘i’enre dni’er‘ 2?008 pm b. ‘H'I . Specie! J e (Atrocrhi) ¥orba m Snead qess f‘nw Nn1W?OU5 whweb n d wk eunder- learned Specm! JLdge affer' gldmn tho nnpollan-t gunlw fer- cnmms<lon of nfffence punishable under Ejection 3070f the Tndicm Panel Code sentenced him to undergn rigomus ms and +9 pev a fme of R: 1000/- m dpfguit 9f \yaymen‘t of flne To fur'fher? underg . g I s lrnemsanmen‘l' ‘Fnr' 6 mom'l'ls 2” T A men? of conviction and order of senfence is challenged on: line nr'cnmrl +hn+ wwl’mnW +hpr2 Hoinn arm rlinrtl’xinn gvlr’ient:e.; lawmad 5;}Ecl ho< convicfed nml senfenced The appellom’ .s aforementloned imgrisenmenf for 5 " S 1 t‘ $4 3. Case. of ‘l‘ha phasecméon, in brief; is ‘tha‘r injured Lakhan Singh {PW—1) was operating amplifier an 27.2.2005 QT about 9 am. <11 6mm Bagdhari Dand; P0¥iaa5+aficn Palii i’ha amused, who was having pravious enmiiy with “the camplainm‘!’ came with axe and assaulted him by axe over his head. Blood was 092mg fram the injury. The accused again assauh’ed the camplainan? by axe. The complainant feil down. Guiab Singh and Amer Singh infervened. FIR. was lodged vide ExP/l on the some day. He was sent for .edical examination. Blaoz‘l sfand soil and plain sail has beer» recavered from the spa? vide ExP/5. He wa$ examined by Dr.C.$.Pardhi (59141-14) vide EXP/8A and faund one incised V‘V wound af 4 x .5 cm over hiS'fr-onfa parietal region and two injuries over his head. Blood were aozing from ingury. He is advised for x-ray and radiologist examinatian repart- is Vida EXP/15. Dearessed fracture at aarietal bane a? skull and fracture of nasal bane was found. The accused is taken inta custady and anthe basisaf disalosure statement made by lmm vide EXP/6 relating to axe, same was recavered vide EXP/.7. 5:39? map was prepared tide Ex.P/§. Seized articles were seat far chemical examination. Presence of human blood over plaint and blood stand soil, cloth of the complainant and ax- recovered from the accused was confirmed vide EXP/20. ‘ l 1 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) and after completion of inyestigationi charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Classi Ka.h.ra, who in turn committed the case to the Court of 5oecial Judge, Korba on transfer for trial. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused. the prosecution has exa.ined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accusedlappellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearing against him 6. Learned Speclal Judge after hearing counsel learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. s\ M” ‘7‘ I have hzard Q: ri Ramakan‘!’ Pamday, counsa! for the aweEhnt and $hri Akhi! Mishmi Degu‘ry Gavemment Advocate far- ?he Stare and perused the judgmenf imgugned and rzcard af The fria! caur‘t. 8. Lear-Md counsel for thg appallanf vehemamly argues 11m? injured ; Lakhan Simgh (PWml) has dagn‘wd “that? he. become Jnconsaégus afier receiving Vin‘gury md he recmlerad in hwyi‘m!‘ bu? FT? ravaais 'H’eczf he. has ladgadv Tha regain? agamsf The app'ailam and other [Mimeges have; been supper‘red 1612 case. of pmqecufion. Learned cmmsa! fur‘rher' argua$ Wan? the appalkm? is in g I,‘\ custody since 7.2.2008 and prior to the judgment he is in custody since 28.2.2005 to 16.5.2005. Learned caunsel also argues ihdt fhe doc‘rcr- has not opined That injury is dangereus 9r fem! 10 The iife, Therefare, convicfion under Sectign 307 of fine Indian Pena! Cdde is n01- susminable under The law. 9. On ‘l'he ather hand, judgment impugned is supported on behalf of The . respcndenTl5TdTe and argues That while injured was dperaTing amplifier, The accused came wiTh axe and caused repeated injuries To The comulainanT shows The inTenTian of The appellanT and The CaurT below has imposed appropriaTe senTence. 1Q. In order To appreciaTe The oonTenTians of The parTies, I have examined The evidence adduced on behalf of The prosecuTion. As regards The quesTion of injury is concerned; The aneelianThas noT disouTed The injuries found over- The body of comigiainanT suhsTanTialiy, oTherwise, injury and iTs naTure is proved by The evidence of Lakhan Singh (PW~1.), DrVC.§.Pardhi {PW-14), ’ radiologisT Dr.G.5iKunwar (PW-9), prompT iodged FILR. (EXP/1),, medicai examinaTion reporT (EXP/8A), x—ray reoorT (EXP/16) ThaT one incised wound of 4 x .5 cm over his fronTo parieTal region and Two injuries over his head, ToTa! .3 injuries were found and fracTure of nosal bone beneaTh The aforesaid injuries were found, 1.7.. As regards The comniiciTy of The appelianT in The crime in auesTioni injured ‘wiTness Lakhan Singh (PW—1) has specifically deposed ThaT while he [ii mung nnar-n‘i‘mn nrnnhfuey' +h? nnnaHnn‘r cnme wm‘h nyp and assmdi‘pd mmr- hm head from backside. He turned inwards back and saw the accused. Witnesses Gulab Singh and Jaila! intervened. He fell down and became unconscious. Witnesses wok hm! to pniice simian and in hnspim! where he recavered Lncanscions He has dep-__d in para-7 of hls rmss-exnrnlnn'hon tha'l' he has iodged ihe repari‘ vicie EXP/’Lbeeizik Singh (PW-2}, 5hiv 5ingh (PW—.3) and Raman Singh (PW—4) have deposed in Their evidence the? they came TO know by other gersons fha't The dlnpellont has assduhed injured and they saw the ingured. @uidb Singh (PW-10) has supporfed the case of the prosecution and has denn d that the arcLsed h aulted the injured by axe. Amar Singh (PW-1“ a n slmhorted the case o‘F the prosecution Both the vultnesses have declared . Ii? by the prosecutinn but thev have supparted the Pa of the prosecution. In his detaii cross-examination, injured Lakhan Singh (PW-1) has specifically denosed that the accused is a person who has caused inuiury to him. He has specificaiiy deposed in para-8 of his cross-examination that when he was assaulted he become unconscious and the accused has caused repeated injury ta him He received regeated injuries. Three injures were noticed by the doctori There was no occasion for causing injury to the complainant. At the time of incident, the annellant came with axe and has caused repeated injuries. It shows the intention of the appellant. 12.. As regards the nature of injury is concerned, injury found over fronto parietal bone was incised wound coupled with fracture of left parietal bone deoressed fracture of narietal bone of skull and fracture of nasal bone was found. The accused has caused three repeated injuries which show the intention of the appellant and when he was intervened by the witnesses, then he has stooped causing injury. 13. After cop Iating the ei/Idence availahle on record learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Taking into considerationi conviction of the appellant is sustainable under the law. C!!! 3l. gawmioaem was agmEmwntow. .zgswm. amumamnEula 2i *3nEaw a"go wcawm nan:39 H an 3.3“33a m3‘ mncww m9. .35; Nuwgw E $5 hrimgwa mgvcm3»; 3 mucamwmcwif .wrm nwwma wwwam nmgi Qm awlg mm :gEw ¢F amammkngm E _.m rmswwv‘ a w m a m m m w a .