CF0000059798 ^ Ln.i..j _ - - /$.'g-^ HI6H COURT OF CHHA66IS6AR AT BILASPUR Cr.ADoeal . 2312/1998 Pramod Kumar Koltha Vs. !liS1!gS«al The State of Madhya Pnndesh (now State Chhattisgarh) Post for Judgment: 2 1.04.2006 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge HI6H COURT Cff CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Cr. ADpcal No.2312/1998 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Pnxmod Kumar Koltha Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) Shri H.5.Patel, Counsel for -Ihe appellant. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State. JU&6MENT (Delivered on this ^f'4 day of April 2006) This appeal i$ directed against -the judgment dated 25.09.1998 delirered by 5hri Ajit Singh, 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Case No.119/96 whereby -the appelbnt was convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo RJ. for six months ond a fine of Rs.l,0(X)/- and in defoult to undergo additional RJ. for two mon-ths. 2. The accused-oppellant was in custody during tridl from 25.4.1996 to 2.5.1996 i.e. for eight days ond after conviction from 25.09.1998 till 28.10.1998, thus in all one month eleven ctays. 3. Briefly stnted the prosecution story is -that the appellant had some property dispute with Daulatram P.W.2. On 25.4.1996 at obout 8.00 A.M. while Dauhtram P.W.2 was buying vegetables in •the market, the appellont assaulted Doulatram with a sickle thrice on the neck. Latat Prasad P.W.6 intervened cnd also sustained some injury. The appellcnt ran away thereafter. F.I.R. was lod9ed flrt-11.00 A.M. on -the same ddy by boulatram in P.S. Chakrcdhar Nagar, District Raigarh vide '^^B^ Ex.P.2. Dauhtrani was sent for medical examination. Dr. A.K. Jain P.W.5 axamined him cnd found on incised wound si2ed 3i" x l"x l" on right side of neck covermg outer nape of neck <md bteral a^iect of neck. Bteeding haAsustained. It was opined by the Ooctor that the injury was simple in nature and could be caused by sharp and hard object within four hours duration. One sickle was seized from the appellcnt vide Ex.P.8 on the seune day. Lalat Prasad P.W.6 was also sent for medical exomination. Or. A.K.Jain found a self-infticted injur/ of sickle shape sixed i' m tength with 1/8* in breadth and partial skin deep wi-th abrosion at Ihe initial site on taterot aspeci of right forearm. There was no bleeding from the site of wound. Dr. Jain P.W.5 opined that the mjur/ wixs self-inflicted and fabricated within four hours duration. He further opined that the injury sustouned by Doutatram was not dangesrous to life but if not treated in time could result in death in the longer duration due to infection or septicemia After completion of investigation, prosecution under Section 3071.P.C. was taunched against the oppettant. 4. Chcr9e under Section 307 I.P.C. was framed ogainst the appetlant who abjured the guilt, pleaded false implication m defence and examined himself as a witness. The prosecution examined as mcuiy as9 witnesses. Retying upon 1tie evidence led by -the prosecution, the leamed trial Judge convicted the oppellant under Sect-ion 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment as aforesaid m paragroph 1 (supra). 5. Shri H.S.Patel, leamed counsel for the appellant has argwd •that the appellant was falsely implicated since in the opinion of Or. A.KJain P.W.5 the injury sustamed by Lalat Pnxsad P.W.6 was self-inflicted injury. The testimony of Oaulatram P.W.2 •riiot he was assaulted •thrice by -the oppellant was also not corroborated by a- -J-ifcKS^ ^fSS^ - 5^ medical evidence. It was argued that the injury sustained by Ooulatrom wos dlso self-inflicted to falsety impticate -the oppeltant. On the other hcnd, -the leamed Panel Lawyer Ms. Sunitn Jain has argiad in support- of -Hie impugned judgment. 6. Having heard -the rival contentions, I have perused •the record. Undoub-tedty the testimony of Daulatram P.W.2 is highly exoggeroted since, according to him, •the appellant had assaulted him thrice by •the sickle firstly on his neck ond •then twice on the back. This is not corroborated by medical evidence since no injury on his back uns found. Daubtram has also stated -that -the appeltant was chasing and assaulting him repeatedly which is ala> not corrobororted by Radheshyam P.W.t and Lalat Prasad P.W.6. Be as it may, so far as the singte assoult by •the appellant on Daulatram by a sickte is concemect, the testimony of Daulntnam is futly corroborated by Radheshyam °3. '<.' P.W.1 and Lafeit Prusad P.W.6 as also/'&r. A.K.Jain P.W.5. Atenely beccuse Dcuhtrom has in his testimony extqgerated 'the verstwi of assault, it connot be wholly brushed asida as unworthy of credit. The above evicfence finds corrobonition by •the prompt FXR. todged by Dculatram vkie Ex.P.2. It is thus u»llestabiished by •the prosecution that on 25.4.1996, the appetlant had assaulted Daulatnxm by a sickle on the neck cousing a simple injury. br. A.K.Jcnn P.W.5 has admitted m parograph 5 -that on examination of baukttram, the injury on Ihe neck was not bleeding. Daulatram had thus sustuined only one injury which was a simple injury, not dangerous to life. It has atso emer9ed in the evidence of bculatram -that he got married two days after the incident. Thus, -the evidence led by •the prosecution establishes the 9uilt of •the appellant under Section 324 I.P.C. beyond doubt. The conviction of •the cypetlont under Section 3241.P.C. is, therefore, well founded ond does not call for any in-terference. —4- uiSSSSSSt «2|BS ^;isfc:^^^: 7. 5o fnr os -the sen'tence awarded by the triul Jud9e is concemed, some focts need to be mentioned here. In -this oppeat, the appellant vws retensed on bail on 28.10.1998 vhle order dated 14.10.1998 passed by this Court and was directed to remam present before the Registry on 8.1.99 nnd on subsequent dates to be givcsn. However, he absented from 18.12.2000. A warrant of nrrest against the appellant was sent to +he Superintendent of Police, Raigarfi who reported that the appelbnt was of unsound mind for the last 5 yeou"s to such an extent -that his hands and feet were tied up with choin and he was tept inside a room. Some papers of treatment in the Psychiatry D^iartment of AAedicat CoSegs, Sambalpur were also sent with the report'. 8. Considering the above and the facts and circumstoinces of -riie cose especially the very simple na+ure of injury sustnined by t)aulatram and the fact that the a(^iellant has ntrendy undergone imprisonment for one mon-th and eteven (faiys, in my considered opinion, the interest of justice would be served if the tippeltont is sentenced to imprisonment already underqone by him ond a fine of Rs.3,000/- 'fCT^tAe^ 1 before 20.05.2006 and in defoult to undergo simple imprisonment for three mon'ths. |v ^JL. TM^M^l'f ^t-L ^l^i-^L /<-/> pf^^L^ ^-tU^y-t^-t . 9. [lf the oppellant faits to deposit the amount of fine of Rs.3,000/- before 20.05.2006, a warrant of arrest riiall be issued by the triai Judge cnd the appellant shatl be sent to jail to undergo the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine. Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge i/^^pt-