.^' - .1 ^T_IHSH^aiJ%)UR'3?_OP J^UDI^TURB' AT BIK^SPUl^ a^-&TT3:SC^RI-I Or.; ^ No. fc<o^~ of 2001 . A^gellant^ &ccusedc? (IN J%IL) ..'• ..? y ^ cf..y/^v ••'Nt^* ^ /^> ^>:^.-^^" cw/ ^ ^y ^// /'.-'/ .Sej5@gndent^ proseaufcion 1) "^ Chandrafchanu ^ 46 years s/o Ug'^^o 2.) ^^ Nehru 20 .years s/o Chandra Bhazxi .'- §) ^^/Shesh Kumar 23 years^ s/o Chassdrabh^nu 4)- Urmxla .ba± 45 years w/o Chandraljhanu:: :1 5) • Ku, r^njulata 19 years^ d/o Ctendra- 8, 'Bhanu..". • • ' ' . , . • • . l • ! 5,11 R/o .of village Khairskhunta , p«S, - S :pit:li@i^ra. Tah. & Distt... Mahasamund, ^ VS R 3 U S State of Ghhattisgarh { through P*S, pith. ^aura^ 'Distf^ Mahasamund .) ^ c^2S^i«M2%£«-J^S.-^2iI^,LO£L^r.^S' ./'- HieH COURT OF CHHATTIS^RH AT Slngje : Mr, Jystice Pritinkar Crjmmaj__AoR®alMo_, 665,of_ 2001 APPB.LANTS RESPON&ENT Chandrabhanu and others. State of Chhattisgarh Shri Ravi Bhagat, counsel for the appeilants, Shri Praveen Das/ Dy, ^ovt Advocate for the State, CRIMINAl APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2} OF THE CO&E OF CRIMIN^L PROCEDURE JUD6MENT (21.02.2011) This appeal is directed against the Impugned judgment and order dated 17.7.2001 passed by 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Triai No, 329/2000 convicting the accused/appeibnts for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to under-go rigorous imprisonment for two years u/S 147, rigorous imprisonment for th'ree -years u/S 148, rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of fts.1/000 u/S 307/149 and rigorous itnprisonment for three yea^ with fine of Rs.500 u/s 324/149 IPC, pius default stipulations. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.11.i999 at sbout 12.30 p.m.F.I.R. (Ex.P-15) was iodged by one Of the injured namely Gajendra (PW-6) aileging that on that day at about 10 a.m. when he was working in his field, the cattle of the accused persons entered into hls field and started damaging his crop as a resuJt of which some quarrei took place between him, his brother Narendra and the accused/appellants. It is further aiieged that the accused/appeilants assauited them by nneans of battie-axe, {Barchhi) and ciub. Based on this F.I.R., offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 294 and 323 of the Indicm Penai Code was registered 'against the accused/appeilants* After' compietion of :\ ^ investigation chalhn was filed on 15,12.1999 under Sections 147, 148,149, 307, 294 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. So as to hold the accused/appeiiants guiit^, prosecution has examined 8 witn^sses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appeiiants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false jmp!ication in the case. 4, After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants for the .offences as mentioned above< Hence this appeal. 5. Counsei for the accused/appeibnts submits that even if the prosecution story Is accepted as it is, the offence under Section 307/149 IPC is not made out against the appeliants because there was no intention on the part of the appeiiants to kiil the victjms nameiy ©ajendra(PV^6) and Narendra (PVV-5), He submits that even otherwise no specific rofe has been attributed to the appeiiants No. 4 A 5 who are iadies and, therefore, a sympathetic view may be taken by this Court. He further submits that the counter case was also registered against the compiainant part/. 6. On the other hand, supporting the Impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that the impugned judgment is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same< He submits that the manner in which the victims namely Narendra (PW- 5) and ^ajendra (PV|/-6) have been assauited makes it clear that the appeilants hod ail the intention to kil! them. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including judgment impugned, 8. Narendra (PW-5) has stoted in his evidence that on the date of incident when he and h Is brother Sajendra (PW-6) had gone to his fieid to tie bundies of paddy crop; accused/appeJlGnt^No/1 Chandrabhanu brought his cattle in his fieid and the cattle started ^.•£^a& .^3X^. & ^ ^:s-:- /' damaging his harvested crop< He has further stated that thereafter he had asked the appeliant No, 1 as to why he is doing this, accused/appelbnt No, 1 toid him that he wiil do the same and you cannot do anything and then he started abusing him and after some time a!I the accused persons came there, accused/appeilant No, 1 was carrying battie-axe whereas appe!!ants No, 2 & 3 were carrylng spears in their hand and appetlants No. 4 & 5 were hoiding ciubs. He has further stated that accused/appellant No, 1 Chandrabhanu injtialiy gave him bbw from the back side and, thereafter, the accused/appeilants No, 2 & 3 have assauited him and the accused/appellants No, 4 <&. 5 assauited his brother <5GJ€ndra, as a resuit of which he became unconscious, he was taken to Pithoura Hospita! where he was initially treated and, thereafter, he was referred to the Medical College, Raipur, In cross-examination, he has further ciarified that the accused/appetiant No< 1 gave him yaririus biows on his back a^d both the legs and iikewise appellants No, 2 & 3 have dso caused various injuries. In paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, he has admitted fhe fact that in the same incident, counter case was registered against him and his brother for assauitjng the accused persons and the said case is pending before the Chief Judicia! Magistrate, Mahasamund, 9, ^jendra (PW-6) whiie supporting the statement of his br-other Narendra (PW-5) has stated that on the date of incident, he and his brother were Gssauited by the accused/appellants, Whiie describing the ©ntirs incident he has stoted that incident was witnessed by Santosh, Ani! and Kailash, He has also stated that accused/appelbnt No, 1 was carrying battle-axe whereas appeilants No, 2 & 3 were carrying spears in their hand and appeilants No. 4 <& 5 were hoiding ciubs, Statements of the injured Narendra (PW-5) and 6ajendra (PW-6) have been duly supported by Santosh Pradhan (PW-2) and Narad (P¥/-4)who are eye witness to the Incident, ^ v'.^& '^ '-'•^- f ^ Dr. Jogi Lal Shrivastava (PW-7) is the witness who had medicaily examined the victim Narendra and given his report Ex<Pa" 16-A has noticed foliowing injuries on his body, "1. Incised wound in the size of 7 c,m. x 2 c.m» x 1 c,m. on interior ^urface of right shoulder. 2. Incised wound in the size of 9 c,m< x 2 c<m. x 2 c*m. on the right side of upper and iower iip. 3, Incised wound in the size of 5 c,m. x 1 c*m. x i- c.m. on the occipital region, transversely piace, 4, Incised would in the size of 5 c.m» x 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. on ieft sccpular region," He ha^ stated that a!l the injuries were grievous in nature and the patient was referred to the Medical College, Raipur< This witness had a!so examined the victim (Sajendra (PW-6) and given his report Ex.P-17-A has noticed foilowing injurles on his body< 1. Incised wound in the size of 7 c.m. x 1.5 cm. x 1 c.m. on right parietal region on middle. 2. Incised wound in the size of 5 c.m. x i c.m. x 1 c.m. deep on right parietal region near to injury No< 1. 3< Incised wound in the size of 2 c,m, x 1 c.m. x 1/5 c;m- on posterior surface of right elbow. 4, Incised wound in the slze of 2 c.m» x 1 c.m* x i c.m. deep on right palm. However he has categoricai!y deposed that ail the injuries sustdned by the victim ^ajendra (PW-6) were simpie in nature. In respect of the injury sustained by the victim Narendra, this witness has stated that if the patient wouid not have been treated prompt!y, he would have ciied and report to this effect was given by him vide Ex. P-19A. Arvind Pradhan (PW-1) -Patwari had prepared the spot map (Ex.P-1). Kuber (PW-3) is a witness of Exs.P-2 to P-7 and P-10, P-12 to P-14 has also supported the prosecution case. ASJ.B.L Sahu (PW-8) is the witness who recorded the F.I.R. (Ex.P-15) and had done the part of investidation. '"•^,. ^' :..<^ 10, Minute examination of the evidence of the witnesses makes jt ciear that on the date of incident, accused/appeibnts No. 1, 2 and 3 who were armed with deodiy weapons, have brutally assauited the victim namely Narendra (PW-5) as a result of which he had suffered five grieyous injuries, Dr* Jogi Lai Shrivastava (PVi/-7) who had medicafly examined the yictim Narendra (PW-5) has categoricaily stated in his evidence that injuries sustained by him was grievous in nature and it could haye resulted in his death if the promptiy medlca) treatment wouid not haye been made Gvaiiabie to him, This apart, statements of the yictims namely Narendra (PW-5)and ^ajendra (PW-6) haye a!so been duiy supported by Santosh Pradhan (PW-2) and Narad (PW-4) who are eye witness to the incident and that being so the conviction of a!i the offences appears to be fuiiy justified and no interference is ca!led for in this appeai, As regards accused/appeliants No. 4 and 5, the eyidence against them are that at the relevant time they were armed with clubs and assauited the victim (Sajendra (PW-6) with it causing simple injury/In this view of the matter, their conviction under Section 307/149 IPC cannot be said to be fuiiy justified and the same is accordingly set aside, However/ their conviction under Sectlons 147,148 and 3Z4/149 is upheld. Now turning to the sentence part/ counsel for the occused/appellants submits that as the accused/appeilants No. 1 to 3 have remained in jail for 9 months and 22 days and the accused/appeliants No, 4 and 5 haye remained in jail for about 5 months, their sentence may be reduced to the period aiready undergone by them. This argument is however seriously opposed by the state counse!» 10, In view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings of the trial Court convicting the accused/appellants under Sections 147/149 and 324/149 are fuily justified and accordinQtv the same are mGintained. \. ^ However, considering the fact that the accused/oppelbnts No, 4 and 5 are bdies and they have aiready remained in jait for about 5 months, it would be in the interest of Justice if the sentence imposed on them is reduced the period aiready undergone by them. Order accordingiy, As regards sentence imposed upon the accused/oppeJlGnts No, 1 to 3, in the facts & circumstances of the case, the sarne is reduced to imprisonment for three years from that of five years as has been done by the court below* 11. Appealisthuspartlyaibwed. | PritinkerDiwaker Judge / t-,