a^ iT) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR rSB: Hon'ble Mr.T.P.Sharma.J.I APPELLANT (!NJA!L) CrimjnaJAppeaiNo,1170of2001 Puran Kumar Dubey, S/o Jamuna Prasad Dubsy, Aged about - 25 ysars, Resident o? ViJiage-Kharora, in the guijy near the house of Dr. i^nnojs, P.S. Kharora, District - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) Shri Manoj Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra , PL fcrthe respondenVState. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF ^R^I^ArDROCEDURE. J UDG ME NT (02.12.2008) The accused/appellant has preferred thls appeai against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.10.2001 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Raipur in Special Sessions Trial No.46/2000 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishabte under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months. 2. The judgment is challenged on the ground that without there being any reliable evidence available on record regarding the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, the trial Court has committed an illegality in convicting and sentendng him as mentioned above. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.06.2000 Dukalha (P.W.-3) was taking dinner in a beer bar at Kharora the accused bought the beer. When he asked as to for whom he was taking the beer, accused toid him what he ^1-:\ ^^tts^. % 1@^^-;^ i ^' -2- would do of it and why he was disturbing him and saying so he broke the beer bottle and attackedthis witness with it because of whteh he sustained injury on his face and became unconsdous. He lodged F.I.R. Ex P/3 and was sent for medical examination. He was medically examined by Dr. Hansa Tondal (P.W.7) who vide report Ex.P/6 found an incised wound over his face, injury on the outer part of the eve in the size of 10X3 cm. was there< The injuries were grievous in nature. BIood stained dothes and chappa/were seized at the instance of Duklaya (P.W<3) vide Ex.P/1. Blood stained ctothes were seized from Keshav Pal vide Ex.P/2. Spot map Ex.P/8 was prepared. BIood stained sojl and Dlain soil was seized vide Ex.P/10. 3. After recordina the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and completing the investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant in the Court of Judiciai Magistrate First CIass, Raipur who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where the Special Judge received the same on transfer for trial. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the judgment impugned. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is not based on the reliable and dinching evidence available on record and therefore the same is not sustainable. 6. On the other hand, counsd for the respondent/State supported the judgment impugned. 7. Injury on the face of Dukalha (P.W. 3) is not disputed. It isotherwise established from the evidence of Dallaram (P.W.2) and Dukalha (P.W.3) ,^^^^ " ^^.^\ "^. j. l^y. ^ %^^f "''%^^:£^-^" which is supported by the evidence of Dr. Hansa Tondai (P.W.7) who medically examined the injured. The Doctor has specifically stated that as a result of injuries, the face of the injured has disfigured. 8. As regards the complicity of the accused in crime in question, Dukalha (P.W.-3) has categorically stated that white he was taking dinner in a beer bar, accused bought beer and on being asked as to what he would do of the said beer, he got angry and used insulting language and after breaking the beer bottle attacked over his head and also caused iniurv over his ^ce. His statement is supported by Dallaram (P.W.-2). Defence has cross examined these witnesses but nothing has been elicited to discredit their testimony. The evidence of these witnesses isalso supported bythe medical evidence. 9. After appredating the material available on record the trial Court has convicted and sentenced accused/appellant as mentioned above. 10. The judgment impugned is based on reliabte and dinching evidence and 1 do not find any ground for interference in the same. ATCordingly the appeal being without merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Jyo