-3. IN ^133 5IGH,GOTBy:_QF ,J!TOI;3A2UR?,,'iT^_jaBALPT'H (MP) GaIMII%L APPS^L KO^'32- /2000. ^/:-; GB.EtIIBiLJSPPHAli UT?I®':s._S3GTION_57A(S),_0? TIffi GOD3 OirclMlI&L-Hi^3roRl:---- ^ ilPEELUlI /' ^ .-L'1-Xajd ^ ^' [^•^ ^" RSSPQNDEKT Sukalu son of Dasiia.Ki'Maha aged about 50 ysars, cal'fci /•fetoT, residsnt of vlllags Parapa, police station- Freja'E'pur, Dist, Ba:st&r« Versus Gonviction U/s 507 I.P.O State oS Madhya Rradesh .tte.nt;.e.acs 10 yaars B'.I. and fine ?L s.5,OOO/-,in da fa ult 1 year R«I. iSS^^M^ ^ Crirainal ivppea._l N0,39272000 Sukalu State of M.P.(C.G. ) Judgment Post £or ; ^f-8-2001 Sd/- R.S. Garg ^^ -8-2001 ?.ii<-&- ^A '^ Eiatai»a ;8aK' BBIilKU'SS''? ;A% IN THB HIGH CQURT OP CHH&TTISG&RH AT BIIASPUR CRIMIN&L APPEAL N0.392/2000 Sukalu vs State of M.P. (C«0.) 81i JUDGMENT \ • Per HonoR.s.Garg.J s The appellant being aggrieved by tbe judgment dated 27-1-2000 passed in Sessions Tri.al No. 10/99 by the learned Tbird Addl.Sesslons Judge, Bastar (Jagdalpur) corivictiog the appellant under section 307 Ipe and sentencJ.ng him to undergo R.I« for ten years an3 pay fine of te.SOOO/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for one year, bas filed this appeal. 2. Tbe prosecution case i-n brief is tbat tbe complalnant P.w.3 Mangalram had kept tbe daughter of tbe accused as bis wife, tbe accused called the complainant Mangalram to his house and asked bim to pay ccmplainant money as the a^Kaass& bad kept b-is daugbter. Tbe complainant Infonned the accused tbat he wasaot possessed of the money but he asszired blro tbat he would pay the money to bim after s <an®time. Tbe accused be.i.ng enraged by the said refusal made an assault on tbe victim by means of a tangj.a (axe). He caused injury on the hand of the vlctim and caused yet anpther injury on tbe chest. The coinplainant after suffering the injurles went to his house, fell uraconscious and lodged tbe isport on the next morning. After registration of the report, the ccmplaj.nant was sept to the iaospltal for bis medical asamination aad repair of -tbe injurj.es. VaiTious ganctaamas ,i| l^' .4 were pre^ired, tbe st.aterients of tbe witnesses were recorded and after ccmpleting the investigation the prosecution agency filed the challan against tbe accused. Tbe accused was put to trial.as he denied comraission of the offence. 3» Tbe progecution in suppod o£ its case escamiaed as- many as f-i.ve wltaesses but tbe accused thougb said defence tbat be wanted to lead/evidence did-not lead any evidence. ^.fter hearing the pa rties»learned court below convicted and sentenced tbe appellant as referred to aboveo 4. Shri Rajesh Jain» leamefl counsel £or the appellant, submits tbat £rcm tbe statements of the witnesses it would clearly appear that the appellant bas beenfalsely implicated. Referring to the statements of tbe witnesses, he submits that tbe appellant had ao intentlon to inake an attaapt on the life of the yictlm .. tberefore, his conviction under section 307 IPc is bad. He lastly subraitted that the tnal court was unjustified j.n awardiilg such a harsh sentence.to the accused.who is aged about 50-55 years* 5. Learned counsel for the S&ate, Shrl Ranveer Singh, on the other band submitted that frua the statanents of P.W.3 Mangalram,;aifc wouid clearly appear that the accused opened an assault on bim and caused him two injuries. He further submJLts that the size of the injury would clearly show the Intention o£ the accused. He submits that award of sentence does not suffer witb ttie vice of excessiveness* 5« I have beard the pacties at lengtb and have perus ed the records. » P.W.3 Mangalram is tbe vicfclm. He h§d clearlY* stated __fL———- ' \. r-!^ that he was inyited by the accused, the SCESB^X accused required hlm to pay some money.on which he assured the accased that he would pay him some aoney. Wbile he was going towards bis house tte accused assaul-fced faim by means of an axe« He suffered first injury near his left elbow and suffered yet another attack on his chest. The Court while recording the statemenfes of tbe-witnesses bad observed that marks o£ the injiiries could be seen« In paragraph 3» be stated that after he reached his house,be suffered with'giddiness aiid slept. Thereafter, be lodged the repoi-t in the next morning. He further stated tbat bls injuries were examined by tbe doctors and bis blood-stained shirt was seized by tbe police. In the crossTexamination» it was suggested t6 bim that in a scuffle he fell on tlie ground and suffered injuries. It was suggested to bim that as the accused did not give h.ua any money.be was falsely implicating theF accused. In paragraph 7, fae furtber stated that after suffering tbe injuries, h®suffered giddiness and there- after he was taken to the hospital by his brother Kanwal. In his cross-examination, notbing important couB be brought out to show tbat he was telling lies. True it is that P.W.2 Mangalram Kashyap and P.W.4 Dban Singb bave not suppor-ted tbe prosecution case but the said P.w.3 Hangalram, the victim, appears to be a witness of tru-th. 7» p.w.l Dr.K.Vlnay Kumar had examined tbe victim. He hafi found one injury on the left hand admeasuing 5 cm. x 3 cn. muscle deep. He also found another Injury on the left chest obliquely placed adiaeasuing ?Y2 an. x 1Y2 cm. skin deep. Both tbe Injurles were c aused by a hard and sharp object. &ccording.to thesaid doctor, he had examlned the shirt of tbe victim and he had raarked the stalns by a pencil. In tbe cross-examin^.ion, J^e refuted 4 - the suggestlons of the defence that the injuries could be caused by a £all. 8« P.W->5 BtaBB!S±agte D.S» Dehari bad Investigated into the matter. He had certified the first information report. the spot map, seizure. o£ the plain aod stained earth, setzure of tlae s birfc and bad further certified that he had sent the seized artlcles for tbeir analytical report. Notb.i.ng silbstantial was put to h-i-m in 't'o.e cross-examlnatlon. 9. From the statements o£ P.W.3 Mangalram, it would clearly appear that it was the accused who maae an attempt by means of an axe and caused blm two injuries< 10» The submission of the learned counsel for tbe appellant tbat as the injurles were s-unple in lature, tbe appellant could nofc be conv.ic ted utfl er Seetlon 307 IPC,. oannot be accepted. It is not tbe aature o£ tte injuries which is decisive but it is the intention of the accused with whicb he makes an assault on tbe victim.'i present is not a c ase where after causing first injury the accused stopped, present is a case where after causing the injury on tbe left hand the appellant yet aaused another injury on the chest. The Injury was not caused by ordir&ry object but was caused by an axe<, Tbe length and widtb o£ the injury would clearly show tj'iat A^ had the injary gone some llttle deeper, it fesuld •i>J^ ^^-to tbe deatb o£ tte victim. 11. After going tbrough the entire evidence, I ara unable to bold that tbe conrt below was unjustified in conv.i.cting the appellant under Section 307 IPC. 12« So far as tbe question o£ sentence is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, the court belp»? was "^ unjustified in awarding ten yearssentence and imposiag fine of gs.5000/-. It appears that the accused was demandiag money because the complainant bad kept bis daugbter as the wife. True it is that the accused bad no reason to get enraged but the fact xaasxsas remains that non-payment of the money was the genesiS of tbe occurrence. 13» Taking into consideration the nature of the injury, the genesis of the occurrence and the age of the accused, I consider present to be afit case where tbe sentence sbould be reduced, Whj.ie mahtaining tbe conviction of the appellant, I dlrect that he shall undergo R.I. for four years and pay fine of ;is.3000/~, in default of payment of fine he stell undergo R.I. for seven monthso If the amount of fiae is recovered fraa tbe accused, tbe entire aroount shall be paid to the victin after due verif-ication. 14. The appeal to tbe extent Indicated above is allowed. Sd/- R.S. Garg Judge ar-8-2OOl,