“WCLMMQQQQILIMHH AT JABALEEB OF 19%.. cRmmAL AEPEAL No Z3) Saitram / alias Nanki, ‘ son of awt Ran; of nlhages Appellant T k ‘ g aged abmlt 26 years, r s2. f h 4H Limga‘m/ Sandpal Tahsil sarai p311 is \‘: Ekaipur“ ; v 9 r Su S ‘ ‘ §§§gg “kw/3 g” lI{fm: n ‘ x The State Of uadhya ?ra;1§511, Respoudmt g- mmm. mmw APPEAL mssrmy 311mmWWW sEcmm SHRI K L 3'74 K031 OF @msw can? mxnomx. " ‘ .5 k ' : . {q , ”7’ iv , Junta To THE sisswNs JUDGE mwa game m3 oEssIoxxis TMAL N0. g1458 AQ g? m mm m ‘ s‘m m . . ‘ ‘v I, L7 I N ‘ o ‘ J s umgm HIGH COURT OF CHHAGGISGAR AT BILASPUR Cr. Aggeal No. 235/1990 Sai'h‘am alias Nanki Vs. Sfafe of Madhyu Pradesh (now Smfe Chhaf‘risgarh) 1/ K Sd/— jlip Raosaheb Deshmukm/ Judge POST for Judgw2006 ' r ’17 $42006 '7 (\x ‘1 / D HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. Agpeal No:235/1990 Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dih’p Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Saifmm alias Nanki . Versus Sfafe of Madhya Pmdesh (now Sfafe of Chhaffisgarh) Shri Gouri Shankar' singh, Counsel for the appellant Shri Ashish Shukla, Governmen‘l Advocafe for fhe Slate. JUDGMENT (Deliveréd on This 27*“ day of April 2006) This appeal is direcfed againsf fhe judgment da'l'ed 20’“ February 1990 delivered‘ by Shri K.L.Kori, First Addh‘ional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Case No. 114/1987 whereby fhe appellant—Sailram was convic‘led under Seclion 326 I.P;C. and was senl’enced lo undergo RI. for four years. 2. Briefly slafed ihe ‘prosecul’ion case is fha'l The agricull’ural fields of The appellanl’ and Sunderlal are adjacen‘i in village Limgaon. On 7.8.1986 al 7.00 AM. Sunderlal P.W.1 wifh his son Rajaram P.W.Z wen? l'o 'lhe field. They nol’iced fhaf l'he appellani-Saifram, co-accused Hridayram and Ranjif were scrapping Their side of field ridge wiTh a 5hovel. , Sunderlal P.W.Z sTopped The appellanT and Two oTher co-accused from i scrapping his field ridge. Upon This, The a'ppellan‘l' SaiTram assaulTed Sunderlal on The forehead by The sharp edge of Shovel. Sunderlal bled profusely and fell Unconscious. On seeing This, Rajaram P.W.1 objecTed whereupon The appellanT assaulTed i“ njr" Rajamm P.W.1 on The head by fhe sharp side of ShoveL Ancfher' blow was inflicted on fhe leff fhigh of Rajar'am. Vide Ex.P.1 F.I.R. was ladged by Rajamm promptly cf 10.40 AM. in P5. Samipali sifua’red abau'r 12 kiiome‘fer's away from fhe place of cccurrence. Bofh Rajomm and Sunderlat were examined by Dr'. S‘BMangr'uikar' P.W.11 who found a huge incised wound 6" x 3" x brain deep an forehead jusi’ above The left eye-brow. Brain matter was exposed. Sunderlal was unconscious and not responding to'any stimuli. He was getting convulsions and was vomiting. Pupils were not reacting to light. It was’o'pined that the injury was fresh and was caused by hard and sharp object and was dangerous to life. Sunderlal was referred immediately to D.K. Hospital, Raipur for X—ray and treatment of head injury with the advice of shifting him to Raipur as early as possible. 3. Dr. S.B.Mangrulkar found the following injuries on Rajarom: i. An incised wound 5" x 2" x bone deep on the parietal occipital area of skull with bleeding and history of vomiting. Pupils were not reacting to light. ii. There was severe pain in the abdomen particularly in the right hypochondria. Generalised rigidity was present. iii There was a linear abrasion 3 centimeters on left thigh and iv. There was another abrasion on left knee. It was opined that the injury No.1 was caused by hazd and sharp object. Injuries No.3 d1 4 could be caused by hard and blunt object. Rajaram was also referred to D.K. Hospital immediately foo X—ray of skull and for treatment. Dr. S.C. Vishnoi P.W.9 took . \”\ #5.— X-my of Rajamm and found fmcfure on the posterior parieml bone, vide reporf Ex.P‘9. After completion of investigation, fhe oppelion‘i’ was prosecui’ed. 4. The oppeiiani' abjur'ed ihe guii‘i, pleaded innocence and examined Chokmvorfhi D.W.1 and Mahesh D.W.2 in defence. The prosecufion examined as many as 12 wifnesses. The learned Trial Judge, relying upon ihe evidence led by ihe prosecution, convicied and senfenced ihe appellani as aforesaid in paragraph—1. 5. Learned counsel for 'l’he appelloni has confended fhaf the evidence led by the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution did not explain the injury sustained 'by the appellant Dr. 5.3.Mangrulkar P.Wl11', on 7.8.1986, had found a lacerated wound 1 cm. x %" x $2” on the left wrist and swelling present with bleeding on the appellant. It was argued that Rajaram and Sunderlal were aggressors and had assaulted the appellant. The injury, if any, found on Rajaram and Sunderlal was inflicted in self-defence. On the other hand, Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Government Advocate has argued in support of the impugned judgment. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I have minutely perused the testimony of Rajaram P.W.1 and Sunderlal P.W.2 as also the medical evidence. Rajarom P.W.1 and Sunderlal P.W.2 have corroborated each other while deposing that when they objected to the scrapping of their field ridge by the appellant, he assaulted Sunderlal by the Shovel on the forehead. Thereafter, the appellant assaulted Rajaram by the Shovel on the head. In cross-examination, these witnesses denied the k0 suggestion pm-fcrfh by fhe defence That Sunderkd had chased fhe appellant and assaulted him by fhe Shovel. Sunderlal has deposed ‘Tha‘l an being assmll'red by fhe Shovel on The forehead, he became unconscious. The fesfimony of above wifnesses is fully corroborafed by Dr. 5.3.Mangr'ulkar P.W.11 and Dr. S.C.Vlshnoi P.W.9. The nafur'e of injuries found on Sunderlal and Rajamm as-delailed’in paragraphs 2 d1 3 were proved by Dr. S.B.Mangrulkar. Dr. S.C.Vishnoi P.W.9 has also proved that Rajaram had susfained a fracture on fhe righ'r posferior pariel'al bone. If was also SJggeSfed by fhe defence fhal' fhe injury susl'ained by Rajaram and Sunderlal could have been caused by a fall on a sharp stone. However, during the cross-examination of Rajaram and Sunderlal, it did not emerge that Rajaram and ’Sunderlal had a fall on a sharp stone. Sub-Inspector 6.R.Shende P.W.12 has also proved the first information report Ex.P.1 promptly lodged by Rajaram P.W.1 on 7.8.1986, which also fully corroborates his testimony and that of Sunderlal P.W.2. Seizure of one bloodstained iron shovel from the appellant-Saitram has also been proved by Sub-Inspector 6.R.Shende P.W.12. 7. The report lodged by the appellant on 7.8.1986 at 10.50 AM. in Police Station Saraipali was proved by Sub—Inspector 6.R.Shende P.W.12. A perusal of report Ex.D.2 lodged by the appellant—Saitram shows that the appellant had prevented ‘ Rajaram and Sunderlal from pouring the sand on his side of the field ridge whereupon there was a quarrel. Sunderlal and Rajaram both were carrying Shovels and assaulted the appellant whereupon he held the Shovel and pushed both Sunderlal and Rajar'am on the ground along withuthe Shovel and ran home. It is v A \‘ <y\ -g/ perfinent To nofe fhaf no such defence was specifically faken in cross-examinafion cf Rajamm P.W.1 and Sunderla! P‘W.2. The nafur-e of ‘injur'y found on *he appellan‘f-Saifr‘om was a superficia! injury. In This View of the maHer', The defence of The exercise of right of privai'e defence taken by 'l’he appeiiam‘ becomes highly improbable The nature of injury sustained by Rajaram and Sunderlal also clearly goes To show fhaf fhe appellani had forcefully ossnnlted ’rhem with the sharp side of the Shovel due to which RaJoramhod sustained a grievous injury. 8. From the foregoing discussion, it is established that the appellant-Saitrom voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Rajaram P‘W.1 by assaulting him with the sharp side of a Shovel which iso dangerous weapon. It is also established beyond doubt that the appellant had assnnlted-Sunderlal also by the sharp side of the Shovel thereby causing simple injuries. 9. It is surprising to find that the trial Court did not award any sentence to the appellant for the simple injury sustained by Sunderlal due to an assault by a Shovel by the appellant which is an offence under Section 324 I.P.C. It is also surprising that only sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years was awarded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. Le. for the assault on Rajaram by a dangerous weapon i.e. Shovel thereby causing grievous injury. It is also surprising to find that no sentence of fine was awarded under Section 326 I.P.C. to the g, appellantwhich is mandatory. However, no appeal ahas been preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence. 11. To conclude, the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 I.P.C. and the sentence of ’R.I. for four years awarded 1 thereunder are we“ founded and do no? cull for any inferference. The appeal being devoid of mar-if is dismissed. 12. The oppellonf-Soifmm @ Nanki shoil surrender before the Sessions Judge, Roipur on 2"d May, 2006 for undergoing senfence. His bail bonds sfand canceiled. In case The oppeilon‘i fails To surrender 1he Sessions Judge shaii issue a warran’r of arresf against him and send him 1'0 Jail 1’0 undergo fhe senfence Compliance shall be repor’red to this Cour? before 31“ May 2006 by 'H'ie Sessions Judge, Raipur. Sdl- J Dillp Baosaheb Deshmukh V A Judge ’ : U 27.04.2006 oli‘ Anni: