CF0000062386' §Eggie Ewmch ( frimgmk IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR M.Po caxMINAL APPEAL No?530‘: ‘ m5 : Bhou @ ohit Shl /o Suesh APPELLAM 7 l R uka, s r IN é, JAIL mar Shl Age bout 23 years, R76 Raja Talab, Raipqr (M.P) RESPNDENE O L- State of Mo .P' U/s 302, 4 I.P.c. 25/37-ma: CRIMNAL APPEAL NDm SECTION 37k 9F CroP.Cn U l Donvition c /S 307 uPoC° U 0f I R.I. far fe an ne ameunt 5co$ dfult r ; RI’ r 2 monh; fine .. fo ts JKu uka, d a f : VERSUS hrough 13.., Gel Baza, Raipur M.P.)‘“ t 3 r ( v N; Crime o s.T.No. 123/99 / 58 p1' Sentence 6§ar d ti 7in ea o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ,. (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 3201 of 1999 Bholu alias Rohit Shukla VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh APPELLANT Shri Rajesh Jain counsel for the appellant Shri Ravindra Agrawal PL for respondent/State. g CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE cooE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. J U D G M E N T (30.06.2010) This appeal is irected against the judgment and order daed 02.1.199 passed by Additional Sesions Judg, Raipur in Sessions Tri No. 128/1999 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 307 C and sentencin hi to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years ad pay fine of Rs. 50, in default of pamet of fine to further undergo g s d t 19 s e , al IP g m n 0 yn riorous imprionment for two months. 2. Facts of the case in brief are tt on 14..1999 Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P- 1) was recorded by the police at ekahara hospital, Raipur and base on tis, FIR Ex. -9 was registered against the acused/appellan on th me d O y t D h nc bo h o s st a ce ea o m i sa y h i a ' ha 1 h M d h P ct e sa ay for the ffence punishable under Section 307 IPC. it is alleged b the complainant Purshotam Lal aga (PW—3) that on te date of iident at aut 7.50 p.m. when e was preparing to clse hi shop iuated at Telipara (Nyapara) Raipur, acused/appllant who was in the habit of extracting money from 'the shopkeepers, came‘ there and dmnded money from him saying that if he did not give the same t hi, he would kill him. It s alleged that on reful b te complanant, accused/appellant took out the knife nd gave a blow with it on his chest with an intention to kili him but some how by moving aside the chair on , Which he was sitting, could save himself but even then he received the J other knife biow on his shoulder. After investigation challan was fiied on \ 19.3.1999 for the offences under Sections 307, 506-8, 452 lP.C and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. \ _// _2_‘ 4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 1O witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has acquitted the aCcused/appellant of the charges under Sections 506—B, 452 IPC and'25 and 27 of the Arms Act but convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph No. 1 ofthisjudgment.‘ 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materiai available on record including the judgment impugned. 7. Counsel for the appellant submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out against the accused/appellant. He submits that as the injuries sustained by the complainant were not on-his vital part, findings of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 307 IPC are not sustainable in the eye of law. He submits that the appellant has been ‘ falsely implicated in the crime in question on account of business rivallary. '8. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supporting the judgment impugned submits that for convicting a person under Section 307 IPC, injuriesare not necessaryrand-only intention coupled with overt act is required to be seen for the said purpose. He submits that the accused/appellant being the goon of the locality is in the habit of extracting money from the shop-keepers by putting them under threat and that even on the date of incident he had tried to commit the murder of the complainant but fortunately due to timely medical aid he could survive. He submits that Dr. Sunil Kalda (PW-7) has categorically stated that radial nerve of the victim got out and micro surgery was performed on the complainant/victim. 9. Pushottam Lal Daga (PW-3) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident when he was sitting in his shop on a chair and preparation for closing the shop was going on, accused/appellant reached there and told him that because of him he was wandering here and there and “3__ demanded money from him. When this witness did not show inclination to give money, he took out knife to assault him but by moving his chair aside he tried to save himself. However, the accused/appellant inflicted the blow with knife on his left shoulder. Even the second blow was also given on his shoulder. He has stated that the incident was witnessed by Anil and Bhau and when they raised cry, the accused/appellant left the place saying that he would again come a day thereafter with ten boys and kill him. Thereafter he was taken to the hospital and was provided prim‘ary é treatment but as his vein got cut, he was shifted to some private nursing it home where he underwent surgery and remained hospitalised for five days. lt is in the said hospital the Dehati Nalishi Ex. P—1 was recorded. ln cross examination also this witness remained firm and not stated anything new. Statement of this witness is duly supported by Anil (PW-1) who has stated that accused/appellant tried to inflict knife blow on the chest of the complainant but somehow he could manage to save him by moving his chair aside. Akhilesh (PW-3) — another servant of the complainant who was also present on the spot too has supported the case of the prosecution. Kanhaiya (PW-4) — the witness of seizure of knife vide Ex. P- 4 has stated that on the basis of memorandum of the accused/appellant i the knife was seized by the police. Vijay Maheshwari (PW-5) has stated that when reached the shop of the victim, he saw the injury on the left arm of the victim and then he was taken to the hospital. This witness has stated that he had also seen the accused/appellant coming out of the shop of the complainant saying that he would kill him. Natwar Lal (PW-6) has stated that after receiving telephonic call, he went to the shop of the victim and saw him injured and then he was taken to the hospital. Dr. Sunil Kalda (PW-7) has stated that on the date of incident the victim was hospitalised in his hospital where he remained for treatment from 14.1.1999 to l 19.1.1999 and that micro surgery was also done on him. This witness had K found two injuries, one on the left shoulder and the other on left arm. Dr. Sunil Gupta (PW—10) who had also medically examined the victim has foUnd following two injuries on his body: x (i) incised wound in the size of 1 1/2 x 1/2 inch in the middle ofthe hand, (ii) Cut injury in the size of 1 x 1/2 inch on left shoulder. -Q; R.N. Pandey (PW-8) who had conducted the investigation has supported the case of the prosecution. B.S. Rathore (PW-9) who had aiso conducted part of the investigation has also supported the case of the prosecution. 10. Minute examination of the materiai avaiiabie on record goes to show that the appeiiant had gone to the shop of the complainant and tried to extract money from him and on his refusal, he dealt two knife blows on his shoulder and arm for which micro surgery was required to be done. This 'shows that the accused/appellant was predetermined for the act as is alleged against him and in these circumstances the Court below appears to be fully justified in awarding conviction under Section 307 IPC by the judgment impugned. 11. Consequently, the appeal being without substance is hereby dismsed. lmpuged judgment is hereby maintained. He is reported to be on ail. He be sent to jail forthwith to undergo remaining part of the sence imposed on him. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker l g Jude is n b l nte l .