^V'^ft, !tL,\<-< M K'S fflSli1 'ffS .--/ J!e'Bench(;rimjnat^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF rtADHTA PRADESH AT JABALPQR. Crimi@al Appeal No2A^ _o£ 1995. APPELLAi'iT -Darbar SiBgfa soo of Kbagesta'war.Siagh Itiakiir, aged aboat 46years, Besidetif •O.E Aklordib, P.3. BbU.ai-3, Tatasll Distriet OURG, (M.P.). VSRSOS RESPONDmT : State of Madtya Prs.desh. <' APPBAL UNDE& SSCIia.I 374 (F THE CCDE OF CRIMItiiAL / - PROCEOOffi. Hi. t%i '^ Si» HI6H COURT OF CHHATriS6ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker Criminal ApDeal No. 249 of 1993 APPELLANT barbar Singh son of Khageshwar Singh Thakur " Versus RESPON&ENT State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) AAs. Rama ©upta,leamed Senior Counsel with Shri J.K. Shastri, counsel for the appellant. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, PL for the State/respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTEON 374 OF THE CO&E OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE JU DGM E NT (17.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 04.03.1993 poissed by 4 Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Tria! No. 263/1990 convicting the accused/appeilant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years cnd pay fine of Rs.1,000/- , in default of payment of fine to furt-her undergo rigorous impr'isonment for 6 months. '•^. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.3.1990 at flbout 3 pm P.l.K. (Ex.P-5) WGS lodged by Narendra Kumar &hurandl)dr (PW-6) dleging in it thot on that day at about 2.15 pm when he was standlng in-front of his house, the accused , appellqnt, who was carrying betel axe, came there and has caused him single injury on his head. The incident is said to have been witnessed by Kashiram (PW-1) and Pradeep Kumar 1 (PW-2). . v' 3. So as to hold to accused/appeiiants guilty, prosecution h.as examined 09 witnesses in support of its co.se. Statement of the accu^sd/appe!!ant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimind Procedure in which he denied the charge tevelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. This apart', witnesses namely Ksjuram AAadariya (DW-1), Jatar Singh (DW-2) and Nakut Verma (&W-3) have also been examined by the defence in support' of its case. 4. After hearing the parj-ies the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appeiiant for the offences as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material o.vailabl.e on record induding thejudgment impugned. . 6. Counsel for theappellant submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, accused/appe-llcmt cannot be convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code ond that the appellartt has already remained in jai! for 9 months and 10 days, no usefu! purpose wou!d be served in sending him to jail and it wqutd be in the intarest of justice jf the sentence imposed on hirn is reduced to the period aiready undergone by him. 7. 0?1 the other hand supporting the impugned judgment, counse! for the State Sabmit-s that the manner in which ths . victim/complainant has been assaulted, no leniency cw\ be shown to t'ne appellont. He su'omitsthat the nature of injury is as such where.the conviction of the appeliant under Section 307 df the Indian Pehal Code is in accordcnce with law. ^^s9n~"a^ ,t::"^""si '"^ 8. Heard counset for the part-ies and perused the mcrt'erial availableon record including the judgment impugned. 9. Victim Narendra Kumar Dhurandhar (PW-6) has stated that on 11.3.1990, on^the eve of "Holi" when he was standing in-front of his house (rccused/appellant, who was carrying betel axe, come there and has caused him single injury on his head, thereafter he was taken inside the house by one Harihar Prasad Verma (md then he lodged the reporF vide Ex.P-5 and was taken to the Govemment Hospital where he was hospitalized ond was under the treatment. Statement of this witness has been duly supported by Kashiram (PW-1) and Pradeep Kumor (PW-2). These two witnesses have categorically stated as to in what mahner the victim wos assaulted by the accused/appellant. 10. Dr. B.C. Tripathi (PW-5), who first attended the victim Narendra Kumar Dhurandhar in the emergency ward of the Hospital, has sfated that he found one incised wound over his head in the size of 4cm x 1 cm which is extended up to bone deep. and then he had referred the patient (victim) for the X- ray. hle has further stated that after six days stitches of the complainant were removejl and then he was discharged from the hospital on 16.3.1990. In the cross examination, this witness ^ has categorically stated that the injury was not dangerous to life and was not sufficient to cause deathin the ordinary course of nat'Bre. 11. t)r. Lal AAohammad (PW-8), who had examined the injured Narendra Kumar (PW-6) in hospital, has found following Injuries:- •% '•% ^y^-^y (i) One incised wound over the left side of the head in the size of 4 cm x 1 cm which is extended up to bone deep. Howeyer, he has not givsn cmy opinion about the gravity of the injury. AA.L. i'houbey (PW-9) is the Investigating Officer and has support'ed the case of the prosecution. f 12. Considering the nature of injury and the statement of ;- the witnesses; it is clear thot the oppelkint has caused a single ;j injury on the head of the irrjured, and there was no intention on -s his part- to cause the decrt-h of the victim Narendra Kumar ; (PW-6)'therefore, the act of the appeliant does not trave! s beyond The scope of Section 324 of the IPC. 13. In view of the above, the appea! is partly ailowed. Conviction of the appe!!ant under Section 307 is altered to ? Section 324 of the Indian Penai Code, appeliant \s reported to 'i have remoined in jail for a period of 9 months & 10 days and ^ therefore he is sentenced to the period already undergone by s him. The appeilcmt is repori'ed to be on baii. His bai! bonds r stand discharged. 'S Pridnker Biwaker Judge