'Iff': INfe.taW- ® TQP--«SHa'l, AQ£3H.^":.am. 0&.-:: .•'~^lBltt^ .SSf!^li '^^.'•'^•-CriM&al: Ap^aF^^^^ WP&LiW^ W iS^f' ::^;^. 2 :&a(Esh3.;;\MaHa.i:':^<a9;ed':.d»eiiri.'42'^teaEs •^' 'SOR-;of ..BaJiFan;Mgbaa'.,B/(».^Itys-ll:]:'j;|?!|^| 'MaN;k9sh&,. •PS'(afaurxya»;'i33.'S!.^ajCTaM^ai3(n|| —Vei'sMs- -State Bf' ^'^ <a i ^•'(•'^••, !::^ i:.:i!l;JM -fSIU! '^i^w&^ wssWX&MSS . Si,:& ifl'::®a :M .4;l"i ^K'r^ ^^li'^'.iy .IS;l;ii^1^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTESe.ARH AT BILASPUR le Bench : Honbi®ttr. Justic®Priti Criminal ApBeal No._ 291 of 1996 Bakshi ^ahar af State of teadhya Pradesh ("ow Chha+tisaarh^ Shri Vishnu Koshtha,counse!for the appeiiant. Shri Prayeen Das, &y. 6ovt. Advocate for the State. UNDEI :CTION 374 (2) OF THE OF .T'SiiTk s ^ - nr<!-^*".^n>^? iimiNflL 1'KUCti. 6 M E N Th's appea! is directsd ogainst ths impugnsd judg?ns"t dcrted 30.1.1996 passed by 2"d Additionai Sessions Judqs, RainmdQoon in Sessions Tria! No. 151/1994 convictina ths accused/Gppellant for the offences pursishabie under Sections 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code ond sentencinQ h.im to underqo n'oorous imDrisonment for 3 yeo.rs with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in defcajjt of paysnent of fine to further undsr rigorous imprisonment for six months u/S 326 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 mon+hs u/S 323 IPC, both the sentence run concurrentiy. ^ le ca.se are thst on 2,7.1994 F.I.R. / 2. Brief tacts ot ^Ex.P-14) was registered against the accused/appeiSant for th< offence punishabie under Section 326 of ths Indian Pend Code. It is o.!!eged that on 24.6.1994 at o.bout 12 am in th.e "oon when the coiTipiainaTt Phoo!sin9h (PW-2) was going to his fisid, he was stoDDsd bv ths accussd from wa'kino on the nath of his field, there was some aitsrcatio" bstwsen the accused ond the coiTiDiGJnont. It is further QiisQsd thot thsrsfiftsr ths accused "1>, ^ i^S^si^ '^ sf and his son went to hi o.iso ailegec and asked .d that when t! th.e o.DDe!lant •rr house and started abusinq him. It is e complainant came out from his house lot to do so at that noint of time the accused had assaulted the complainant with ths "od, as a rssuit of which he sustoined some injuries. It is further al'eged that when the wife of the compioincsnt nameiy Sayltri Bai (PW-3) had intervened, she too was assaulted by the accused by rod as a result of )one. ich she sustdned fracture on her right tempora! 3. p.< accus So as +o ixamined as mony as 1 :-ellant guilty, prosecution ,'itnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Se^tion 313 of th.e "e in which he denied ths charaes leveied against him and pieaded h|s innocence cind false 4. After hearing the parties the tria! Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appeiiant as mentioned above. Hence this appeaj. 5. Counse! for the appsiiant submits that the appei'Gnt has been falsely implicated and even he too was assauited by the complainant. He further submits that incident had taken place on a spur of moment and therefors, the o.ppei!ont dessrves to be acquitted. 6. On the other hand, counsei for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that Savitri Bai (PVi/-3) -.wife of the complainant had sustained fracture on her and, therefore, conyiction under Section 326 of th< id Code is in accordance with law. He further ^s^ 's submits that both ths injured persons i.e. complainant Phoolsinah (PW-2) and his wife Savitri Bai (PW-3) have categorically stated as to in v/hat manner they were assaulted I" h.2 accused/appel'ant. 7. I have heard leafned counsel for the parties at length perused the materio.l avQl!ab!e on record including the iudgment imouaned. It appears from the record that c'n 24.6.1994 thers was some altercation between the appeliant/accused and cosinpiainant Phool Singh (PW-2) and on account of this a'tercation the accused/appellant had gone to the house of the compiainant and there he assauited him ond his wife Savitri Boi (PVV-3). Sanha Entr).' was mo.de on 24.6.1994 itseif vide Ex, &-1 and, thereaftsr, after receiving the X-ray report of Savitri lai (PW-3), FIR was registered against the accused. Sahukar So.hu (PW-1) is the witness of ss'zure Ex.P-1 by which one iron rod was seized from the possession of the accused. Phoo! Singh (PW-2) - iodger of the FIR has cate.goric.ai iy stated that on the date of incident when he was digging ths well, he had gone to search some stone in the fiejd of accused Bakshi ,AAahar, the accused had abused h.im. He further sto+es that at about 12 in the noon whsn he was at his home, accussd./appeilant and his son came there and had started abusing him. He further states that he wo.s assaulted with the help of iron roo.d and when his wif'e Savitri Bo.i (PW-3) tried to intervene sh.e too v/as assauited; as a resuit of which she sustained gr'isvous injury on her head. She furtb.er states that her daugh.ter Sumitra (PW-4) was a!so o.ssaulte.d by the accused. Complainant Phooi Singh (PW-2) has also stated that his wifs was hospitajized o.t Chhuria Hospita! for about one week and +he"eafte", she was also hospitalized at Rajnandgaon. Statement of the cornpioinant Phool Singh (PW-2) hos been duiy supported by Savitri Bai (PVi/-3) - wife of the complainant, sh.e has categoricaliy stated that firstly the accused had asso.uited her husband and than when she tried to intervene, she was ojso o.ssauited. She has further' stated thot she remained hospitalized ot Chhuria c:id thereafter at Rcynandgaon cmd the hospitaiization period was about 15-16 days. Another injured witness SumJtra Bo.i (PV»/-4) h.as o.lso suppori'sd th.e prosscution CQS®, Dulra'A'c Ram (PVu'-S) has though stated that there wos some dispute betwesn the accused and the complainant but subsequan+ly this witness has been decjared hostlle. i-1ariia (PW-6) has a!so supported th.e prosecution case and has stated that she has seen the entire incident in which complainant Phool Singh (PVV-2) and his wife Savitri Bai (PW-3) were assauited by the accused persons. &r. A.K. Basod (PW-7) had examined Phool Singh (PW-2) and his wife Savitri Bai (PW-3) and had given the report Ex.P-6 and '-7 has cateaoricoJiv sto.ted that Savitri Bo.i ho.d suffered foilowing injuries:- "Lacerated injury on right middie parietaj bone in the size of 4cm xlcmxl cm. Bleedina caused within 6 hours. It may be coused by hoTQ and blunt object." He also states that compiainant exo.mined by him and he had suffer "Abrasion on the right elb< £. .05 cmX .05 cm. Bieeding T+ • ;! Singh (PW-2) was d foliowing injuries ;- joint in the size of with.in 6 hours. blunt objsct. \ ^•v'..—^'''^/ He had seen the X-ray report (Ex.P-13) of Savitri Bai (PW-3) and had found fracture of right parietai bone. i-fe has aiso stated that nature of injury sustoined by Savitri Bai (PW-3) was grsevous in nature. Dr. A.K. Gupta (PVV-9) is the Ro.diologist and had taken the X- ray (Ex.P-13) of Savitri Bo.i (PW-3) has cateaoricallv stated that she hod sustained fracture on her head. Jhabbula! Sahu (PW-11) is the Sub Inspector, who mads the initial entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha on 24.6.1994. 1>&: 9. Froiri the evidence of the witnesses, it is ciear th appeilant ho.s rightly been convicted by the court below Sections 326 and 323 of the th^ idiGH Penal Code. Hcving come across the entire pros and cons of ths matter the only conclusion suitabje for the offenders liks appeilo.nt herein is the apo.thy not sympathy. Accordingiy, this Court finds nothing to interfere with the conviction ond sentence recorded by th.e trial Court and to biow a life to the eal. Appea! being lifeless is dismissed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge