HHHH IIIHHHHIHIHHHII 61 690 IN THE HEGH COURT OF IUDIGATUBE AT JABALPUB‘ A CBI.APPEAL gppellan ( In custody ) sState of Médhya Prades J through S.H.O.V ggsnondent : No. ‘S W _/199'7 Rajhxalias Rajkumar s/b Tiharu Suryavaqshi, Aged aoout 21 year$, r/o Hasturi, District“: Bilaswr (14.1).) Versus P.$. Masturi, District; léilaspur (MAL) ‘ h, mGH COURT, OE CHHRTTISWH : RT BIL3SPUR. z Raju alias Rajkumar Appellant ‘VSO '- Reslpondent : State of Chhattisgarh. JUDGMENT Hon.shr1 R.S.Garg. J. : The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment datea 3.7.97. passed in Sessions Trial No.403/96,’ by the learned seventh Addl.Sessions Judge.~ Bilaspur. convieting the appellant under section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo for R.I. for 5 years , has £1led this appeal. 2). The prosecutim case in brief is that 29.8.96g the victim Ku.Bina was collecting the water at. a public tap with her sister Kn. Binda Bai. Theaccused’came on the spot with a knife, started abusing all and made attack on the victim Bina. After suffering the injuries the victim fell on the ground. The matter was ‘lmmediately reported to the police. the police referredthe girl to the hospital for her medical examination and repair of the injuries; ::aortain articles were recovered at the instance of the accrued. epot map was prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of the investigation the ehallan was filed. The appellant-accused denied the commission of J,J A/ 2- - iv ‘ offence . therefore. he was put to trial. After 1 re¢ording the statements ef the witnesses and hearing the parties. learna trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as referred to abcve. 3). shri Rajeev shrivastava. learned counsei for the appellant submitséhat as there ls material contradiction in theistatanent of P.W.1 Eina relating to lodgauent of the repert and as the saic injuries found on the person of. the said victim could be caused by fall. learned Court below was unjustified in convicting the appellant. 4). Shri Ranbir Singh.‘learnea counsel 'for the State on the other hand submits that the statements ct Bina is supported by-the statement of P.W.2 Binda(sister of the victim) and P.w.5 Ramfal, father of the W victim. According to him the injuries which are stahrwounds could not be caused by fall. 5). True it is that in paragraph 2 of the statanent P.W.1 Bina had stated that arter suffedng the injuries she fell in a pot hole and thereafter she regained her consciousness in the hospital. It is also true that the LLR. ans/1 contains her signatures . 0n the basis 0f this. it is argued that if the girl lost her consciousness and regained the same in the hospital r. then the F.I.R. would become suspicious piece or evidence. The argument of the learned ecunsel loses sight of paragraph 7 of the‘statement of the said witness. she clearly stated that her relations Were telling her that she was £irst taken to the police station g. -3- and thereafter she was taken to the hospital. Even J; S assuming ‘ the P LR. is not pr‘ove&’ then§too the facts which are flea ‘ on the surface of the record would¢just1fy the conviction of the appellant. P.W.1 Bina had clearly stated that she su£fered the injuries on her waist, armpit, iront anri on the chest . P W.2 Binds and P.W.5 Ramfal have supported the prosecutrix ‘ on every material count. P°W.7 Dr. M.K.Rai baa clearly stated that he found three stab injuries on the person o£ the victim. He also W gertified that the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the original course of the nature. No suggestion had been given to thew itness that injuries could be fig. caused by a fall.’ Even assuming that % injury could be caused by fall on a sharp object. then the placement of injuries on three different parts o£ the body would certainly show that the injuries could not be caused by single fall. The injury no.1 was on the abdominal region, injury No.2 was on the buttock while the injury No.3 was under the armpit. The depth of the injury in each case is iarying between 3 to 5 ems. Assuming that she fell m a ditch. then unless it ii shOwn or suggested that she suffered other two injuries in the same fall. the defence suggestion uannot be accepted. / 5 ’ C t After‘going through the entire records. I am unable to hold that. the F.I.R. was not lodged by the victim or the injuries were caused by fall. The court belOw was certainly justified in recording the findings against the accused. so far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is E Xssary ,,In w \FV -4... The appeal deserves t0 and is accordingly dismissed. to look into the same because by now, the accused has already undergone the entire sentence. 7). i Sd/— y R.S. Garg Judge 05.09.2001. 1+2 o . %