Criminal Appeal No. 566/2007 APPELLANT Nansai Panda Vm’sns Non-Appellant State of Chhattisgarh JDGEMENT POST ON 5 MAY, 2009 //, R.L. Jhanwarj / f y r HIGH COURT OF CHIjATTISGARH, BILASPUR // Sd/— Judge £152009 "’ *\- M 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH,’ BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI R. L. JHANWAR,_. Criminal Apyeal No. 566/2007 Annellant Nansai Pando, S/o Bhuwaii Pando, aged about ’ 65 years, occupation— Agriculture, RfG—Villagc- Katgori, P. S.—Son_hat, Distt,-Koria (CG) Versus Non-apyellant State of Chhattisgarh through, - Police Station — Sonhat, Distn’ct-Koria (CG) Present: Shri Vijay K. Deshumukh, counsel for the appellant. Shri Pradeep Singh, Panel LaWyer for the State. . J U‘D G M E N T (Delivered On N5. Sl 2009) 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22nd June 2007 passed in. §T No.30/O6, whereby learned Sessions Judge, Koria, has convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.l. for 5 yearsand to pay a due of Rs. 1,000] -, in default of payment of nne, to further undergo R.I. for 3 months. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 26.11.2005 at about 2:30 pm, complainant Ramchamn (RW. 1) was standing near Katgon' Chowk; he was in drunken condition; appellant came there, who was also drunk. He asked the complainant to join him for taking liquor. Both of them went to the house of appellant, where complainant sat outside and the appellant entered inside his house. Appellant came with an axe and asked the complainant that he will kill him. Vocal quarrel irrupted. Themupon, the appellant assaulted the complainant with axe on his back. The complainant started crying 33 and run away, after some distance, he fsll down and became unconscious. The incident was witnessed by Sundersai (P.W.6), Chatrapal (P.W.8) and Parmeshwar (P.W.-9). The complainant was hospitalized in unconscious condition at Baikunthpur Hospital: where the complainant lodged Dehati Nalisi for Section 307 of IPC against the appellant. Dr. Rameshwar Shanna (PW.-15) has examined the injured and found incised wound on the back of the complainant. First Information Repott No.95] 05 was registered by Sonhat Police Station for the odence under Section 307 of the IPC and the odence was investigated by them. 3. After completing the investigation, chalge sheet was iiled before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Ambikapur, from whexe learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur (Koria) received the same. Charge under Section 307 of the [PC was named and explained to the appellant, who abjured the guilt and took a defnece that he is innocent and has \been falsely implicated. . The learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record held the appellant guilty ofjhe od‘ence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and thereafter convicted and sentenced him. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction recorded by the trial Court, but he is Challenging the severity of the sentence passed by the trial Court. 0n appellant’s request the appeal was limited for r\\hearing on the question of sentence only. 7 @ , I hays hem learned counsel for both thc parties and. pemscd the mcord of the ‘m'al Court. It is not in dispute that the appellant and the complainant were mends and wexe under intoxicaiion. There was no pmvious animosity and only one incised injury has been inflicted by the appellant on the back of the complainant. . Having considered the overall evidence available on record and considering the fact that onlyone incised wound on the back of the complainant has been inilicted by the appellant under intoxication and also considering the fact that the appellant and complainant were friend s, I am of the opinion that if substantive sentence i‘s reduced that will meet the ends ofjustice. . In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Convicn'on recorded by the tzial Court is maintained. Substantive sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced dom 5 years R~.I. to 3 years R.I. J Sd/— a J R.L. JhariWaifi ‘ Judge :k ' 5'” /5/2<3079”