~s MS ^^^a^ w°" - .., r^b ....-"'^^ ,•»• yies^ 03^ w. ^.-•••••""6> siiM SlngtoBench INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH ATBILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL N0; / 2008 Appellant (InJail)^ Gopal Singh^Thakur, S/ Q Shiv Mangal Singh, Aged about 50 years, R/o Masjid Para Kota, P.S. Kota, District - Bilaspur-(C.G.) Versiis Non Applicant : State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. - Kota, Distt. : Bilaspur-(C.G.) CRIMINALAPPEALU/S37<(2) OFTHECODEOF CRIMINALT'ROCEDUKE, 1973 [;'•] \ HIGHCQMRT<WGHH/OTTI^AI^MS1LASF'UR (Hori. IVIi'.JusticePritinKerDiwaker) CriminalApfteal No.8'140f2008 APPEl-l./^NT GopalSinghThaRtir VERSUS RESPQNDENT StateofChhatfisgarh , Shri Dtreereniira Pandey Gounselfbr the appellant. , Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for the respohdent/Staite. ieralvnNAL«P13EAl£U!NDERSEGTIQN3740^^^^^ ®RrlVllNAI-PROGEbUftE. • . ' .' ; JJJ_D_GJW£J^; ''fe: , : • '..:':':.'Y, (13.01.2011) • •: '••^•^•^ Thisappeal is directed againstthejudgmentdated 4.8.2008 passetf ;by Additional Sessi&ns Judge Bilsispyr in Sessions Trial ;iN<:).; 27/2QQ8 coftvictingitfieaGCUsed/aippSllantun^ Indisn Penal Csde and sentencing niirl to una^g&^ n imprisonment for seven years and pay fin®of Rs. 5QO iri defa^ payrnehf df fine to furtti'er und&rgcs ^tigorQus imprisonm^nt for one^ mdnth. .; ' •;:..:':, '?w:;.l':'?'-:'.:.'^ !' . : : ' '; : 1- '"•"^,:,;': 2. Cas&^^ was Isdged by oneSnnt. Laxmi Thakur(:l^ 1), ttie wife ofWe vi^ Ashok ThaKur (PVW-3) alleging that orffhatday at aBout 1.30 p.rrt ^ccountofsofflepn^ertydisputetneaccused/appellart her tiusband on his hsind, neck ahd shoulder with thie help 6f battle.iaixg^ as a resultf 6f whieh:his Jeft;tiancl was Ghopped off. After investjiptitsn CHallanwasfiledbythepOliceon 22.12.2007 underSection 307 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellanf gyilty, prosecution tias examineciasmanyas 07witnesses irbsupporfofitscage.Statemei-ito^ the accused/appellant was also recerded under seictibh 313 6ft|1:he| Gode^ of Criminal Ptocedyre, in which fie denigd .fhe^ftaita^lgveill^ ^ainst him and plead^ llis;innt)Genc;e:and^^ ';-'^. -<..^^. •-:•"- ~'<;:- S?-»u'. —2-- case. One Shiv Kumar(DW-l) has also been examineci by the cfgfenGe in supportdfitscase. 4; After hiearing the partiSs ttre trial Gourf Has^^^ e^ sentenced the accused/appsilatlt as ffiehtioned aBtive. 5. Heard counset fQr (He parties and perused ttie matSrial availaBle onrecordincludingthejudgmentimpu'gnecl. 6. Counset for the appellant submits that the aGcuse'd/apiSSll.ant tras bei^lalsely jmplk^fed inflre caseaisliRereextstedse^ displ^ bfetween the aGcused/appellartt afid ffie viGtini whs tiappgn be the real brothers. He submits that vietim AslTtik Thakur (PW-S^waS a drunKal-d and on tHe date of inciaent he was under tlie illfluenee ef liquor. He subrnits thatsomeoneelse had'assaulted the victirfl buttas there was some prbpe'rty dispute bstween him antf the'% aecused/appellant, his wife has implicaitecl him in a ^lse case. H& alSO^ gubmitsthatthereapp6arstobesome6v6r?Vtfrilirigi th6FIR. •<•>.".' -. 7. OntheotfterhandcounselTorfRer^pondent/Statesi.lpportSthie- judgment impugned and submifS ffiait the manner in wffi has be6n assaulted shows th6 heinousness dftHe aGtOftheappellafiP i whiGti r^sulted in his leftarm being csrnple'tely ehopped off apai't ffbm 1 an incised wound on the eyeBrow aftd cut injury on tHe baick si<J^ of tlie Ineck. He subrnits that looking t6 the injuries sustainefJ by tlre victim it^ lcanbesaidthMhewasfOirtunateenoughtosurvivettieSame.^ 8. Laxmi (PW-1) — the lcidger of the FIR has Stated that viGti AshokThakur is her husbandwh^reas aceuisecl/ap^llant is hefelderi brotheMn-law (Jeth). On the date 6f infiideftt after ttearing the noisg when she came out of her house she saw her husband lying in a pobl df blbotl afid the aGCused/appellant vras holdihg a battle axe iri niS, hand; AcGording tb ffiis Witness/on h^ rai^ p^rsons hact come thi^re and tften her Rusband was SRifted lo th&| hpspital. She has stated tftatsome land dispute between herntiSbeindr ''4 •; r' 1:^ :!I;^.a 'l'i.l.,:i^lK^ :'K '•:^^i^&^l fc "^ J "s... ^'A s^.;^*'^4t ':ctaSv*!y ~ s"-^ '... '. . '':"-;- •''•.' •'•'. ..'.' "'•. •' -•''•• ';''' ^'•••:':.^'~:- and the acGUsed/appellant is pending in Gorella Court; In cross exarnination alsd this witness stood firm to her statement maae in examinatiori-ih-chief and has not stated anything hew. Minor daugliter of the victiffi namely SOnali ThaRur (PW-2) has stated in hgr evid®nc& thatonthedaiteofincidentafterhearingthenoisewhehsKecameGiut of her house, the acicused/appellant was assaulting h^r fsither with fh® battle axe. Accordihg to her, the accused-appellant ttSd dealtblQws^o the Rand and neck 6f tier father ahd he was bleeding prdfusely. This witness has stated thatshe had even recjuested theaecused/aFipellant not tb assault fier father, and on hearing her Gries her mothgr had eorrTe out artd then tUe victim was hospitalised. VictimAsRok Thakur (PW-3) has stated in hisevidence that on the dat^of ihcident when aftsr parKing his bicycle he was going to attend the natui-e's c^ll, accused/appellant assaulted him with battle axe and caused injury on his neck, ami and head. AGCording to him.when the accused/appellanf was t6 assault on his heGk, he tried to f^nd the attack in whichi he sustained injury onhis left hand and itwascHopped offabovethewrist and then he was hospitalised. In cross-examiheitian thiswitness stoocl firm to what he has stated in his exannination-in-chiefandnotstated anything new.Abdul Gaffar(PVV^)has rrofstated anyttiirig againstth^ accused/appellantSndhasbeendedaredhostile.GirishGupta(PW-6) is the witness to seizure and memorandum but he tbo has nof suppiortedthecaseofthe prosecution. DrFNifcita Shiah (PW-7)who had medically examined the victim andgiven her report Ex. P-9 found fbllowing injuries onhis body: (i) Complete amputation of palm ofthe left handwas there. (ii) Laceratedwoundonthelefteyebrowinthesizeof2x1/2" (iii) Incised wound on the bacK side of ttie heck in the size of2 x1/2"x%" This witness has stated that the injyry No. 1 was grievous ih nature and could have been caused with sharp-edged vveapon arid it wasl: sufficient ih the ordinary course 6f nature t6 cause death. TKis witiess^ tias clarified tnat.the hand of the victim was cMopped off above the : :wrist. • / •i • •>* r. •;- S| ;| ^s...,^.,'1 '•^:sy —C-i-' ; ; . :1;'' ! . .;:: .::•!:' 9. ThHS the evidenee t^ the witness^ examined by the prose^icni an^tHeiri}uries.sust8in^;bytnevictirngot&shiiW ^rtun^^ enougftj t6 surviv® the attaeR ^ th®•e^ Moreoven evidsnee in respeet of motive is alsoon reccmajffhichr goes foslTOw ttiat there was sonie property dispjte^^ and the viiStirn wtiiett ultimately Gulminated in ttie crime in qugsi^ Nothir^ has Be^ br6t^W on re&ord by the def^ee for il-iis ©ourtti:) disbeiieve fhe statements of fhe vietim, his wife and the minor daygllter who havg made Gategorical allegation that if was tlie accused who assaulted the vietim with the lle'lp 6f baittle axe. Sfatemerif of defencie witness Shiv Kumar (DW-1) thiat it was some otHer person wtio haci assaulted the vicfim is totally unreliSible. Statement df th®docitor who had medJGally examined the victim makes it clear that had proper tresitment ndt been provided to tlie vietiifl in time, h®cQUld have diecl.^ In ttiese cirGUinstStnees, fhe fihidings rec&rcied by tHe Courf Below convicting ahd sentencing theaccused/gippellSnt asmsntiBned sibove do notsuffer friom any legal setback callihg fOr any interf^renee in thls appeai. ' ' , ' ''; ; :..: , ':"' . • :.',',,:'^ 10. In tlie result; the appeal being devoid of^inysubstgnoe isliabl® to be disniissed. It is dismisse-d as sueh. Judgment impugned beirig a well reasoned one is hereby affirffied, Appellahit is alreatiy in jail ail£l^ hence no order regarding his surrenyer etc: is requirsa to be paSsed. / r SdA Pritinker Diwaker ff?ai IS'''