i'S.l g^if^V'SWi f^Vi e^-VS'SS K.iT^^Td^ifhlSt'S.S AT1 TSVV ••^ - \. versus .Rajes.b. SolomaQ 'y'' State of Chhattisgarh versus Raiesh Swauii State of Chhattisgai-h Shri A.K.Prasad , counsel for fhe appellarLt. in Cr.A. No. 433/2001 & Sttri Kunal DaS, couasel for fhe appellant io. Cr.A. No. 393/2001.Shri Prayeea Das, Dy. G.A. for the State m both! tlie apFeals. ' ! APPBALS UNDBR 8ECTIOM 374{2i OF THE CR.P.C. (03.03.2011) • : ' As both the appeals are arising.frora-the sam.e judgment and order ttatEd 12.04:2001, tliey are beiag disposed cfby tfais coniBionJ > jiidgEa.eiit, The present .appeals iare dii-ected. agamst ttie impugiiedi judgment da^ted 12.04.2001 passed by.the Third Addrtional Sessions] Judge, Raipi.ir ili:^essionsTrialNo.l3/2000 coBvictiag ,ttie| accused/appellailts for the oJTence puBisfaable iiTi.derSection307;of] the Indiau Penal Code and sent.encm.g each of them. to iindei-go! rigpi'ous unprisonment-for 7 years'witb. fine of Rs. 500, in defaiilthofj pavnient of fin.e to ftu'flier tuidereo RI for o&e aiQSXh. / • • ' ' • • . • . ' •. .'••... • ' ' • ' :. : 2' ' 3rief facts of Zhe case at'e fhat on 10,11.99,'at about 10.051 •p.iii. FIR ^Ex.Ri.lt was lcxlged bv Sukalu Pal {P.W.-ll altesing tliat.ou ^ '"'%t "^ 3> <;' llt fhat day at about 9.40 p.m. one Rajeshwai' @ Takku had assaulted 'his son Rauiesh Pal (P.W.-2) by ineans of kiiife causiiig varioiis miziries. Based on fhis FIR offence' under Section 307 IPC was registered agais.st Rajeshwar @ Takku. T'he victua was inedica.Sly exaiiiiaed by Dr. Surjl Gupta. (Ex.P/17) on 10.11.99 itself. After uivestigation, cliallaii was filed on,8. 12.99 undcr Section 307/34 IPC. 3. In respect of its case, fhe prosecution has examined as niajiy as 11 witnesses. Stateinent of the aecused were also n;corded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. iu wluch tliey deD-ied tiie cliarges leveled against fheia aiid pleaded iunocence aad false unplicalion ia the case. Tliis apait, one defence witaess has also been exainiried. i 4. After heariiig counsel for the parties, vide ijnpugned judginerit th.e Court below has convicted tbe accused pei-sons as luentioued above. f 5. Conteution of Shri Prasad & Shri Kunal Das, couiisel for fhe appeUaiits is that four iiijuries have been sustaia.ed by iDJiireS Pamesh Pal aud aU tiie iajuries were simple in nature. They subruit fha.t even if fhe entire prosecution case is taken as it is, at best ttie offence under Section 324 IPC would be ra.ade against, the acciised/appeUants. Tbey fiirther subiii.it tliat tlie appellants have alreadv remajiied m. iail for about 18 raonths 6 dav's & 9 iqontbs 18 davs respectivelv aad fiierefore their sentence be reduced to tfate pe;riod already undergone by theni. : 6. On fhe ofher haad, opposing the subinission of fhe counselts for fhe appellants, it has been argT.ied by Sh.ri Das fhat the inanaejr ia which victiin Rainesh Pal was assaulted inakes it clear fhat thp accused/appeUants had even7 iutention to kitl the victiiu aiitl fherefoie the conviction underSection 307 IPC is fiillyjustified. 57. . Heard counsel for the parties aiid perused tbe gvaLlable on record includitig fhe iiupugiied judgmient. iijll i \t- t't':sii: 'I Ramesh. pal (P.W.-2) iu his conrt statemeat has stated tliat he knew the accused persons and -A'hen he wa.s retT.imir..g ai't.er attenduig ta.e can. of na.tui'e. fhev came from. behind and assaulted bim. He Iias stated tb.at accused-Raiesli SwaiDi was carn'iag knife wh.sreas accused-Rajesh Soloia.on. was cai.rying sword in his haad. He Taas further stated that when he feU down, Raiesh Solomon tried to assa.ult hiiG. by sword whereupon to save himsetf he ran away fi'oru fhe spot and on the way he rn.et one Goviiid & Rain Yadav to whora he/infonaed about fhe iacide.nt aiid fhen reached his bouse, infonaed ^ his oareuts aad fb.en FIR was lodged and be was laedicallv examinedj. Sukalu (P.W.-l) lodger of the FIR aad father of-victmi Ramesh Pal has stated that the victim caine hoiue in the injured conditioa asd had .iaforBied fhat tlie accused/appeBan.ts haye assaulted hiia. He has furtli.er stated ti3a.t about four niDnfhs prior to th.e ineideEit there was soiue dispute between accused Rajesh Swaici and Ramesh Pal a.s a result ofwhich. case under Section 307 IPC was register^d agauistvk'tim Ramesh Pal andhis frieiids. • Baijubliatt (P.W.-3) is the seizure witoess ofEx.P/Sto P/5 has not supported fhe proseGution case aiid has toeen declared hostUe. Govuid (P.W.-4i towboia the incident was first iza.formed bv thc victiia has also not supported the prosecutioii "case and lias been declared hostile. Vikas Thafcur (P.W.-5) Sub Inspector has done part of the iavestigation. Rain Kum.ar (P.W.-61 to wlioia also the iacident -(^as aarrated by tlie victim. has not supported fhe prosecution case a-nd has been declared hostile. Narayaa Lal (P.W.-7) is the seizure witaess pf Ex.P/2, P/3, P/4& P/5 by which fhe knife, sword aad ceirtlmi clotties were seized, has supported fhe prosecution case. G.S.BaisaTa (P.W.-8) is t3ie Invest^atmg Officer. Jagdisti Patel (P.W.-9) isl^ttie Patwari who has prepared tb.e spof inap (Ex.P/ 16). Leeifishwari, |t3ai (P.W.-10) mother of the victmi has sfated fbat she was mformeflj by J ,1 fhe victiia fhat fh.e accused/appeUaats Iiave assa'ujted hini. Dr. ^Si|inil 1:1 Gupta (P.W.-ll) who bad m.edicaily exaniuied the victini a&d given his report Ex.P/17 Iias fou.nd foHowuig four ianiries on]iisbod??:| i i1 iacise wound ia fhe size o'f;lc'm..xl Vz CDI. x 1 cm. innscle l^! deep on fhe rigllt side of chest iif! ^^I^?- •sawE-.asaiSf^^^KsSs'Sssy^^tss /- - .. •i .? I. ''••fS iv1 incised wouiid on the left side of the waist in the size of lcm.. x */2 cin. x lcia. incised wound on the left haiid Uttle fuiger, skui deep in. ttie size of 2cm. x lcin.x Ya cin. Accordiaely to this witness. alt tlie iaiuries sustaiiied by the victim were simple in. na.tiire. He has fiirther deposed tliat tbe iniuries sustaiaed bv the. victtm were not sufiicient to cause his death.. 8. Miaute exaiEiiiaticui of fhe evidence Diakes it clear that on Ae date of iiicident. acciised oersons have assaulted victuii Rainesh Pal by laeans of knife and sword as a result of which he sustamed four sim.ple injuries. Considemig fhe evidence and nature of iajuiy, offence under Section 307 IPC is not m.ade out a.gairist t£ie accused/appeUaiits. However, fhe oifence under Sectioa 324 of tlie Sndian Penal Code is clearlv uiade out against thc accused/appeUaats aad therefore .fhey a.re. coiivicted for the sai.d Section. 9. So far as the seiitence uart is concemed, tlie aTspeUants are now iniddle aged persons, as uifomied, haviag famihr responsibfliti", fhe incident :had taken place in fhe year 1999 i.e. 1 1 years back, fhiat tlie appeUaats liave reinained ia jail for about 18 raonths 6 days &.| 9 inoriths 18 days respectively, their sentence is reduced to the period alreadv undergone bv fliera. Tlie appeUauts are on bail, flieir baU boads staiid discharged. In fhe lesult, fhe appeals are partly allowed. ^!llll|]ii,....t(sS;a'fi ;SEiE3-.Li:KaiiKSES?.!- •..-•* ;.!-;:s: J:i