WW,W¥W£,W W m m 200 anagram (W) mmiwm éwffa‘uanam WWW WWW APPEAL NO. 2532/1997 Rumsundar' alias Sundar‘ Kor'vu, son of a a handuriya, District Gadwu (Bihur) fate of M.P.-. APPELLANT horan Kowa, aged abou'r 25 years, sidenf of Village Smwa'f, §5PO&DENT Miss Mam-fa Shrivaswva, A vbcui'e appear-s as Amicus Curiae on behalf The appellant Mr'. N.K. Meli'l’a, Panel Lawye far- ihe respondenfuS'la-re. ‘* August 200?) Per Dhirendra Mishrn, J; A1 The oufse'l learned Amicus Curiae appoin'l'ed an behalf of Hie appellan'l' eubmiifed that th’ appellant has already undergone the jail sentence imposed upon him under Section 307 of the IPC by the impugned Judgment and he as been released from jail on 4.10.2000. However, learned Amicus C riae contended that from perusal of the statement of complainant Dil aar (PW-5), who sustained injuries in the it wauld be evi ent that the incident occurred in a spur Q‘E said incident, FS/246~— 2/200" CRIMIN L mw,m,m @ Wm vi 200 WW (W) mwm mm m mmm WW WIW $3Tmm memen'l‘ when Theccmphinunf and +he appellant were engaged in mufual scuffle. Azf— There was no in‘ren ion of The appellanf 'l'o cause deu+h of complainant Diidaar and fhe i cidenf occurred, as fhe appeiiani‘ & fhe compiainani‘ ini-i'iaily bo‘ih ha consumed iiquor and were under +he . influence of liquor. She furTh r submiTs Thai The offence againsf The appeilan'i' does noi‘ iravei beyc d Sec'i'ion 325 of IPC. On +he afher hand, iearne'd Panel Lawyer for fhe S+a+e supporfed +he impugned Judgm n12 I have heard learned unsel for The pari'ies and perused fhe evidence available on record in luding fhe impugned judgment The appellan'l' has been convic‘led by 'l'he learned 2’” Addiiional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur in Sessions Trial No.278/96 vide judgmenT da'l'ed 24.10.1997 under Secfi n 307' of IPC and has been sen’ienced fo undergo RI. for 6 years and o pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in defaul'l' of paymenf of fine 'i'o furi'her u dergo RI‘ for 6 monfhsi The convicfion of +he appellan'l' is based on he sfa‘iemenf of injured Dildaar (PW-5), Heeraman, (PW-2) & Shanicha (PW-3), who were eyewifnesses of 'lhe inciden'r, and Dr. R.K. Tripa'lhi (PW-4), who examined The injuries after +he incideni' and proved 'l'he injjury repor‘i of Ex.P-6. Dildaar (PW-5} has smiled 'iha'r The appellanT wiTh an inTenTion To kill him. firsT assauhed him b club over his righT leg, on his back and er sw'ic FS/246~ 2/200-7 GRPRJ ' {x WW,W,W @ resuH of which he fa“ down on fhe ground and fhereofl'er fhe appel onf dealf o knife blow over his left eye as a resulf of which his left eye came ouf of The sockeT and he losT his eye. He has furTher sfaTed fh after fhe incidem he fa“ down on fhe ground and even Then The accus d oonTinued To assaulT him and he gave several blows by knife. A'H' r receiving injuries he underwen‘i Treatment however he iosT his The version of Diiduar (PW-5) is duiy corroboraied by fhe sfa‘remem of Dr. R.K. Tripufhi (PW-4), who has found corresponding injuries over The ief‘t eye & eye brow of Diiduur upari frcm o+her three g injuries presenT over The shoulc er, scapula region of back and swelling The doc‘ror has specificaiiy s‘fai'ed fhuf Injury No.3 was grievous in naTure di dangerous and fhe injuries were caused by +he knife, which was sfenf To him for examinufion. 5+o+emen+ of fhe complainanf is also corrooorai‘ed by The sfaTemenT of Heeraman (PW-2) & Shanichar (PW-3), who were wifnesses of The incident 'Looking To The injuries sLsToined by The oomplainanT on The viTal par? of his body i.e. face di eye and furrher considering +he weapon of offence used for commission oif crime by fhe appellant Le. knife and also considering fhuf repeafedg blows Were inflicfed by fhe appellanf upon The complainant, This courET is of The considered opinion ThaT The ision from leff eye. on The back side of Ieff land. GRPRI FS/246— 2/2007 ~ 50.0’30, l l J back side of his lefl' hand as WI. m ‘Hi 200 mm (W) mmw mm m mmmm ,3- $§mm @ ause deufh of 'the comphinanf has f§gh+ly in1'en1'ion of fhe uppeHun‘l' 'l'o c been inferred by 'I’he 'h‘ial cou -1'. In +he result fmm fhe evidence available an record fhe frial ' illegalify or infirmity in convic‘ring and r Seciion 307 of ihe IPC. The appeal of 1'he appellani' is devbid of any subsfance, 'l'he same is liable fo be dismissed and i1- is hereby dismissed. a e SM i DmRENDRA MISHRA l’ ' Judge caur1' has nai cammif‘l'ed am L senfencing The appellant unde GRPRJ ii FS/24L’r; 2/200? —— 56.06Gf WI. m “i 200 3mm (13W) maxim amwm mwm VV’W wwwefeetm ’aaaimm