•^ ^^^< APPEAL ©6.PRISONER SiTOTe Bencff .i^yr^ ^rsr No-^2^-^..Name— Father's Nam'e-—-<s^J-^^- Residence^^q"^^ -W=fF^-l^^i- Crime No-^^3—PoliGestation-^^^^---SessionTrial 1 Sentencedto-----c^.afr-^^-s^yr3T^—---——-Qn--^^''-^ Undersection---"go?-<STz?^s-f^----~--""by^T^f^^T^^-^[^ [vrs^a.if-tif ^^.^^.^Qe.^^&eiBL^^^ ^^.sess^nTrial NO.-I^^NS: ••^-t -Si^ »3e?7~@iTT-^5pT3 Itis.expainedto ttiepFisonerthafifhestates orwishes to be .represented by legal practitioner the Appellate Court will'not proceed with the base foF,s.ev°n*days ^inless the legat practitionerappears.lf the legarpractifioner does riot wish to be. s'dbyleaglepraGtttioherfhecourtrtiayproceedatoneewittithecaseancl will not be obliged to give a hearing to any lega} practitioner' who •should'appear. 1- Datet^.Application for eopy of}udgement~|^-——^-a- 2- Date on wich eopyrecieved——--——-^-—^S;-G7L::- 3-0ate onwich Appeal sent-————————-^^~6'7^-SCS^-—-. 4- Whether the prisoner wishes to-be represented or not - Yes'/ y6 5- Whether The Judgement Copy. and Progress Report of The case has given to appellaht/'Couriselorofthe appellant 'y'&A- 6; i a No.^--^^^-------yame.-.^^^^-^^ Confine(i;in----—----^^^--3ait-sCT.g^^-.~-.----- No-S^fe?(e^7--Dafed—-&^^p2dt}-^--^ Forwarded to'the CftlEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE- togatherto the proper Appellate Court.. . ~&e*'.><^ -f^sfsT.pr^^^r 1.5' |o.-12^£^^^—pated^-^-^3^-290- ?^ T_]i~ Fbrwardedtothe Date of ree^ipt in ApF^llate Court- ^i£..^ifsu>^W^^. .(P.T.O.) 3'< ziLAsycrn [ -,OtA^?006 •-*w^........^l4— lt<li*.p. IKsriit-oaft, fs' \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. .Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No.564 of 2006 _ APPELLANT RESPONDENT Ramlal Telami VERSUS <( i? State of Chhattisgarh. i» ':?K1" ShriManoj Kumar Dubey for the appellant. Sfvi Avinash K; Mishra PL for the respondents/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (06.10.2009) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.7.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 190/2005 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 307 ofthe Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs. 300, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rl fortwo months. 1-lowever, he was acquitted ofthecharge under section 120-B IPC. By the same judgment underchallenge other accused persons namely Bhagchand andNarayanSingh have been acquitted of the charges under section 307/34 and120-B/34 !PC. 2. Case of.the prosecution in brief isjhat on 21 4.2005 at about 4 p.m. when injured^Puran Singh'was sitting in his shop, accused/appellant came there and took him to a placeat some distance, some verbal altercation started between them and in the meanwhile the accused/appellant took out a knife (locally known as Kadn) and dealt four blows with it in his stomach, chest and arm. As a resylt ofthe injury thejnjured fetl downon.the ground and beeame unconscious. Immediately thereafter, he was taken to the Hospitat. Deh^i.Nalisi Ex.P-1 wasregisteredon 22.4.2005. FIR Ex. P-14was a~ II 1.1- \. , : . registered on 23.4.2005. Victim was medically examined by Dr. Pradeep Pandey (PW-11) who found following injuries on his body: A) one incised wound in the size of % x 1 % inch in the left upper pottion of thestomach; B) one incised wound in the size of % x 1 % inch on the left sideofthechest; C) one incised wound in the size of Vzx % inch on the front of left si^e of chest; D) one incised wbund in the size of 2 x % inch on the left arm. 3. Soas to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement ofthe accusedwas also recorded under section 313 of the Code of CriiTtinal Proceduife in which he denied the charge ievelledagainst him and pleaded^- innocenee anci false implication in the case. Two witnesses namely Rajsula (DW-1) and Manhar (DW-2) have aiso been examined in defence. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accusecf/appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Counse! for the appellant submits that once the two other accused persons have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them and even this appellant has been acquitted of the charge under section 120-B IPC, his conviction under section 307 IPC is illegat as there was no motive on his part to assault the victim. He submits that appellant is resident of village Toynar which is about 150 kms. away fromthe place of incident and further that as the appellartt was noteven knowing feffm.the question of assaultby him does not arise. He submits that dhce the conspiracy is not proved by the prosecution, the appellant ought to have been acquitted by the Court below. He submitsthat in the Dehati Nalisi Ex. P-1 it has been mentioned that one Banmali and. Siyaram along with other family members caught hold of the appellant on the spot but they have not been examined by the prosecution. Lastly he submits that no test -identification parade has been conducted and the appellantwas not [ 3- known to the victim before the incident and has been falsely implicated in thecase. , 6. On the other hand counsel for the responctent/State supports the judgment impugned andsubmits that the appellant was caught hold of by Banmali and Siyaram along with other family members on the spot itselfwith the heldlofGanesh (R/V-5), Khemchand (PW-6), Bairam (PW-7) and one Tatlram and other villagers and disclosed his name as also the namesof other accused persons. He submits that in view of th1s fact when the appellant himself had disclosed his name before number of persons, there was no need for the prosecution to conduet test identificatlon parade. He submits that as the appeilant was not known to the victim, victim has not disclosed his name but when the appellant himsetf disciosed his name, he was taken to the police by the abovementioned persons. He further submits thatnature of injuries is as such that the offence under section 307 IPC is clearly madeout.He submits thatthe victim has categoricallystated in his statementthat he was inflicted four knife blowson his chest, abdomen and arm. According to him, statement of the victim is duly supported by Dr. Pradeep Pandey (PW-11). Simjiarty, Ganesh (R/tf-5), Khemchand (PW-6), Balram (PW-7) and most of them have categorically stated in their statements that after assaulting the victim the appellant was raising the stogan "Naxali Jindabad" and when he tried toescape, they caught hold of him. According to theState counsel, once the appellanf was caught red handed on the spot, the prosecution is notrequired to lead further evidence. As regards motive, it issybmitted that it is to be seen from / • ^ the mind of th&person causing ^sault and in the event when the eyewitnesses are there, prosecution is not required to establish the! motive. Moreover, the doctor who examined the injured has categorically stated that the injuries sustained by the victim are grievous in nature and are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary .course of nature. He submits that the acquitta! of the other accused personswould not be helpfuttbthe present appellant for the reason that against those persons there were no specific allegations of ~^L- \ assault but agalnst the present appellant three eyewitnesses have categorically stated aboi.it the active role ptayed by him in the assault of the victim and that too he was caught red handedon the spot. Apart from this, the doctor who examined the victim has opined that the injuries caused to victim are fatal in nature. '«'. 7. Heard counsel for tl'te parties and perused the material available on reeord including-the judgment of the trial Court. 8. After golng- through the material available on record it is apparent that it is the present appellant who went to the shop ofthe victim, brought him to some distance, picked up some verbal altercation with/him and then infllcted four knife blows on his stomach, chest and arm. The doctor who examined the victim has found various aforesaid injuries on his body and opined that in the ordinary course of nature the injuries are sufficient to cause death. This apart, there are three eyewitnesses to the incident who had caught theappellantred handed on the spot while he was trying to run away. Thus, this court is of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the accused/appellant for the offence mentioned above and in acquitting theother accused persons for want of any specificevidence against them to the effect that they were also invoived in assaulting the victim. In view of all this materiat, the impugned judgment cannot be said to be faulted with leading to any interference with the judgment impugned. 9. Acebrdingly, the conviction av)j6rded to the appellant is upheld. .T. . 10. As regards sentence, counsel for the appetlant submits that the appellant has already completed more than four years of jail sentence and therefore he may be sentenced to the period already undergoneby him. 11. On careful consideration df the evidence of the witnesses this ;Court cfoes not find any scope.to offer any leniency to tlie appellant ~f -L f Q^ JssfBMia Ja^upuj -/PS .'c' '^ •pessi.iusip Aqsjsq si }! pue.soueisqns ou SBM leedde-eyi leyt s! unsay •Zt •M3JA IU31U81 Aue\ffl p9ini!isqns'sq puueo jsdojd pue tsnf Buisq 33U8»U9S 'A|Bu!pjooov -LUIII uo pssodiu! souetuss BuipjeBej \ - s— BiptBWfintmiR'i