HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 1993 APPELLANT (In Jail) Santram S/o Govind Sakar. Aaed 35 years, R/o Godiyaripara, Arang, Police Station - Arang, District Raipur (M.P.) RESPONDENT Versus The State of M.P. (APPEAL UNDER SECTION374 OF THE CODE OF Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Present: Shri Devershi Thakur, counsel for the appellant. Shri Ashish Gupta, Panel lawyer for the State/respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25' November, 2009) By this appea! the appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order sentenced passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur dated 3rd Mareh, 1993 in S.T. No. 89/89 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Panel Code sentenced himto undergorigorous imprisonmentfor one year. 2. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged on the ground that without there being credibie and clinching of reliable evidence the Court below has convicted and senteneed the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. Case of the pro§,ecutiori, in brief, is that on 31-08-1988 at about 07.30 p.m. complainanjt' Chandrashekhar wassitting infront of Naveen Printing Press,»Arang where appellant came w'th sword and attack upon the complainant. A case was registered by the complainant. Duringcourse of attack. complainant receive one incised injury over little finger. First information report was lodged by the complainant vide Ex. P-5 on the same daywithin halfan hour. Doctor examined and found incised wound over little fingerof right hand injury was simplein nature vide Ex. P-6. One bicycle and sw$Rl was recbvered vide Ex. P-3. After completion of investigation charge- /^ /.'!'ai fi Ua \'^. ^l-— sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipurforthe offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Panel Code. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Raipur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer. 4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as well as witnesses accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and innocency and false implication is claimed. Appellant has also taken the defence that on the ground of previous enemity and illicit relation of the appellant with the sister of the complainant Ku. Shashi Chandrakar he has been falsly implicated. 5. After affording an opportunity of hearing the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 6. I have heard Shri Devershi Thakur, counset for the appellant and Shri Ashish Gupta, Panel lawyer for the State/respondent and perused the judgment impugned and-record ofthe court below. 7. Counsel for the appellant vehsmently argued that this is a case of false implication on the ground of illicit relation ofthe appellant with the sister of complainant namely Shashi Chandrakar she has not supported the case of the defence but she has denied thatshe has written letter to the appellant (Ex. D-1) and also denied for her handwriting for examination. She was not under obligation to give her hand writing for examination therefore her denial will not adversely affect the case of prosecution. 8. Counsel for the applicant furttier argued that present case rests on the statement of the complainant Chandrashekhar PW-5 which suffers from infirmity. PW-1 T.K. Das has not supported the version of complainant. Prosecution h.as declared him hostile. Learned counsel for the appellant further submife that appeltant was in custody duringtrial since 13-09-1988 tei 11-01-1989 about three montbs twenty eight days and presently since Q1-10-20Q9 till today for about one month and twenty five days thereby he has suffered about five months twenty three days imprisonment which is sufficient sentenceforhim. -y ^ 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent supported the judgment impugned and argues that conviction is based on clinching and reliable evidence. 10. I have examined the eviGlence in order to appreciate the contentions of the parties. I have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. PW-5 complaina'nt Chandrashekhar has categorically deposed that he was assaulted by the appellant and has lodged First Information Report Ex.P-5. He was examined by PW-7 Dr. Sharad Chandra Shrivastava vide Ex. P-6 and found incised wouhd. As pointed out in para8 the defence of the accused is not found acceptable prima facie. The evidence of complainant corroborated by the medical evidence and promptly alleged first infbrmation report vide Ex.P-5 are sufRcient for drawing the inference that appellant has voluntarily caused injury overthe finger of the complainant by sharp edge weapon sword. The Court below has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the IPC. As regard the question of sentence is concerned the appellant was in custody from 13-09-1988 to 11-01-1989 during trial and presently he is in custody Trom 01-10-2009 to till today i.e. 25-11-2009 and his served about five months and frwenty three days of the sentence. 11. Taken into consideration, injury and its nature including the ageof appellant at the time of commission of offence sentence about five months twenty three days is sufficient sentence. Consequently, appeal partly altowed the conviction is maintained. AppeUant is sentenced rigorous imprisonment for five months twenty three days already undergone under Section 324 of the Indian Panel Code. . , f, 12. Appellant be released in the present case if not required in any other case. ^ / Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge '?-