Ct ^ II 1 '01\ ^\u 'i 9 O JL i IN THE HIGH COURT OF MrtDH'fAJ'RMjESH AT JABAy3rJR , jy • ' Cr<Appeal!ES No» ^./'^'/Q3 ll^^s^^^l , • ^ksml'(IJi^l} P^fuggu^ alias Buku^ alxas Dharrftendira aged about 20.year^son:ofPardeshi 3alra.gl ^resident of Xt^ariya^ P^Sfr ia,iragarh;^: '• district Rajnandgaoxi4/ • •- . Oi i . vs ^\ ^i^EOM^il. ' • 1" 1|, • State of Hadhya Pradesh : ^ ' COHVICTZOH U/S 308 Z<P.C< SEKTENCS 3(three ) years R.I.and fine of Rs.2000/- In -default S<I&or one year^ APPBM. UNDSR SBCT1CN 374 GR.P,C. BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.07 11:59:50 +0530 HIGH COURT OFCHHATHSGARH AT BILAM»UR (Hon*ble M».Justice Pritinker mwater) Cr.A. No.812ofl993 APPBVLANT Bhuggu @ Buku @ Dharmendisa VERSUS RBSPONDBHT State of Madhya Pradesli |! 1 ": --- Post ft>r pronouncement of fhe judgment datal 6 J 04/ 2010. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge —3Mn— :':^.^f.. HIGH COWW OP CHHATTIBGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON*BLB MSL JVSTICB PRrrXNIOBR DtWAKER CR.A.NO. 812/1993 APPBIAAjjT RBSPONDBNT versus Bfauggu @ Buku @ Dhanaendra Stste of Madhya Ptadesh Shri B,M,K,Bajpai, counsel for fhe appeUant ShriVaibhav Goverdhaa, P,L, forfhe State- APPLICATION U/8 374 OF THB CRJ'.C. JUDGMBNT (©^.04.2010) This appeal is directed agamst fhe judgment dated 14.8.1993 passed by fhe Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, Distdct Rajnaadgaon in Sessioai Triel No. 78/93 convictmg the accused/appeUant for fhe offence pTuaishable under Section 308 ofthe Indiaxi Penal Code and sentenciag Mm to iindex^o rigorous iaiprisoxuiient for fhrce years and to pay fine of Rs, 2000 in default offhxe to fiirther undex^go sixaple iaiprisonment for oae year. 2- Brieffacts offhe case are fhat ia tihe mtenremmg xii^hit of 5-6/1/93 at about 2.30 a.m., NR Ex.P/4 was lodged by injured Teju Ram (P.W.-2) aUegmg iii it fhat oa fhe same day at about 9.30 p»in.when fhe folk dance was gcring on in fhe viUage, he was watchmg fhe same, accused/appeUaat Bhuggu @ Bhukii along wifh some persons tried to spoil the atoaaospherc whereupon he had asked Raju & Bhuggu @ Bhuku not to do the same on which Rqu got aanoyed and some altercation took place between fhem. Thereafifcer Raju fhrew him on tihie ground and present appeUant assaulted him wifh fhe help ofblade as a rcsult ofwhich he si^staisied iajuries on tds neck. He shouted for help aad oai heaiAag fhe cries, one Shaxikar Pal (P.W.-7) came aad took liim to tfae hospital and provided treatment After mvesrtj^ation fhe chaUaxi was filed agaiast fhe accused/appellaat & co- ^2^- ? accused Raju for ofifexices piinishable under Switions 323 & 307/340ffhelPc. 3. In order to establish fhe guflt of fhe accused, fhe prosecution has exanmied eight witixesses, Statement of fhe accused/respoxidents were also recorded under Sectioai 313 of fhe Cr.P.C, in which fhey dexiied fbe cbarges levdled agaiast fhexxi aad pteaded fheir ixiaocence and false implication ia fhe case. This apart, two defenoe witoesses have also been exaxaiaed by fhexii ia support offheir case. 4. APter heariag couxisel for fhe parties, tihe tdal Court has convicted aad sentenced co-acx^used Rsgu for tibie offence uiider Section 323 offhie IPC and accused/appellant Bhuggu @ Bhuku for the ojffence under Section 308 of fhe IPC. Hence fhis appeal, 5. Heard coiinsel for fhe parties aad penised fhe material avaitable on recoxd iacludiag tihe itapu^aed judgment 6. Contexition offhe counsel for fhe a^eUa&t is (hat as per flie stoteiaent of the witaesses it is clear fhat at fhe time of iocident, it was dark and the entire io^cident of maarpit had taken place when fhe Hght was off. He has referred the Court statement of fhe victim Teju Ram (P.W.-2) and submits fhat the victim has categorically admitted tbe fect tibiat at ihe time of iacident Ughts were aff aad Ihe eaitire^ iacident had taken place m fhe dark, He fiirther subxmts that none of fhe witaesses has stated fhat fhere was eaiogh light at fhe place of iacident in wluch fhe accused couM have been identified, 7. On fhe other hand supportiag the iinpugaaied judgment it has been argued by fhe State counsel that on fhe stage fhere might be dark but firom fhe statemeat of the witaiesses it is apparent tihat fhere was engouh V^bt where fhe incident had taken place. He furfher submits fhat fix>m ffae spot map Ex.P/8 it is apparent fhat tliere were two light poles, He subinits fhat mimaiiately after the iiicident, fhe sy^.^.^^^.,^..^^^^;;^.,^^^^,^ -&- coixiplamaat siarrated fhe incident to fhe Constabte Narendra Prasad (P.W.-5) axid prompt PIR waB also lodged. 8. I have heaxd coimsel for tiie parties and perused (he record. 9. Dr. Kishore Kumar Jaia (P.W.-l) who had cacanmicd fhe injured Teju Ram (P.W.-2) vide Ex.P/1 has found the foUowiixg mjuries on him: i) four incised wouiid over head aad neck regioa Margin clear cut sharply defined bleedmg i^ Inc^sed wound 6U xl39 x 1/859 sptodle shaped maximum depth at lower end, vertically placed (rt. Side ofneck) iii) Incised wound 639 Kl" x l/S" spAadle shaped horizcmtally plaK?ed (rt, Side neck) iv) Incised wouxid 5J? xl" x 1/y spiiidle shaped-It. side offace (neck) v) Incfeed wound 3" xf x 1/8" J shaped vortiaatty placed over It. side ofchm, He has stated that fhe mjuiy causcs pertnanent 8canng and are grievous ia nature aad fhere was excesswe bleediag. 10. Teju Ram (P.W.-2) has atated fhat on the date of iacident, when fhe folk daace was gomg OH» accused/appeltouit and co-accused Raju were creating niiisaD.ee and tiierefoi^e he had asteed fheixi not to do so, He has stated fhat after hearing the saine the accused persons carae nmnmg to him, Raju fhrew him on fhe groxuid and accused/appeUant Bhuku @ Bhuggu assaulted hiaa wifli blade whereupon he shouted and on hearing the crie^ Shaixkar (P.W.-7) caoie fhere aad took him ncaar titie house ofone ChaDdmal (P.W.-3) and then he laarrated fhe mcident to them. He has stated that tiiercafter one police constatole caoie fhere and along with Tiim he went to the poMce statian and after lodgiag tiie FIR he was taken to Khairagarh hospital where he was hospitedized for about a week< In cxoss examiciation, fhis witaess has stated fliat when he was assaulted titie li%ht was off and accused •^'. /^^'#:. i: I 1 '%^cSffly'' wai»>s»^5g^x,.ys -M persons rushed towaxds him and he was beaten. He has fiirther stated fhat about five minutes prior to the ancident, fhe light was oflT. T- 11. Chandmal (P.W.-3) has stated fhat Ire saw Shankar (P.W,-7) bringmg tiie victim iiear tds shop wtio bad sustaiaed iajuries on his neck, He has further stated fhat fhe naaate of fhe assailaxit was fhough told to htai but Ite does not rcmeHiber fhe same, Later on tiiis witaess faias tumed hostile. 12. Narendra Prasad (P.W.-5), police constable, at tihie relevaiit time who was on duty near fhe placc of mcident and he has stated fhat upon beiag asked fhe victiia taad iafonned him fhat it is fhe accused/appellant and fbe co- accused Raju who had assaulted liim 1mith blada In his cross examiaation he has categoricaUy steted fhat (he Ught of the stage was fhough off but the Ughts of other places were on. Nizam Khan (RW,-6) Patwari, who had prcpared fhe spot inap Ex.P/14 has stated ffaat fhe said spot map was preparcd by hiin wifh fhe help of fhe witiicsses. Shaiikar (P.W<-7) is fhe seizure witnesses ofblade Ex,P/6. He has stated that after tbe mcidexrt Teju Ram had caUed him aad he was just 10 yards away fix>m biia, He has also stated fhat Teju Ram was lyiag on fhe apot, be lifted him, took ^im near fhe house of one Chandmal and saw fhe iajuries on the neck which were bleediag, He has stated that he gave his towel to fhe victim and fhe same was tied upon fhe mjuries aad fhen ffae victim was taken to fhe doctQr, He has also stated fhat when he had asked Teju Ram a»to who assaulted hioi, he said notiimg. Chbagan Dave (P.W.-8) is fhe Investigating ofi&cer and whfle supportfng fhe case fae has stated that the spot map Ex.P/8 was prepared by him< MotUal (D.W.-l) and Jhumuk Ram (D.W.-2) has stated that on fhe date of incident, the folk dance was oi^anized ia the viUage however fhere was no Ught finom 9,00 p.m, tll 12<00 in fhe midnight They have also stated that they have not seen any incident nor any dispute, :'^' -«». 13, Minute examixxatton of fhe statexciexit of tiiese witaesses ia particular, the Btatement ofTeju Ram (P,W,-2) aad Shankar (P.W.-7) makes it clear fhat fbough the Kght of fhe stage was oflT but tibere were lighte m ofher places, Teju Rain has stated fhat when he was beiag assaulted, fhere was no Ught but tf fhe entire statement of fhis witaess is taken iato consideration it is clear fh.at prior to fhe assault on him, lliere was light and he was watching fhe folk dance, He has categorically stated fhat on fhe stage tlie accused/appeUaiit was creatmg nisaace aml he had asked fhem not to do so aad because offhis he was aasaulted» He has veiy categorically stated fhat initially he was Ihrown by the co-accused Raju and ftien fhe present appeUant Bhuggu assaulted 1iim wifh blade< He has iurtfaer descnbed as to how people were sittmg whtle watchiag the folk dance aad where fhe accused persons were standmg. He has stated fhat on account ofdarkness, he could not see as to wlio had assaulted him, One or two lines of tihie statement of thiti witaess caanot be read ia isolation aiid his entire statement is to be seen, 14. So far as fhe statement of Shantear (P.W.-7) is conceraed, he has veiy speci&calfy stsrted fhat on fhe eve of Dussehra tihe folk daace was oi^anized m ffeie viUage aad he had gone to see the same, He has stated fhat fhere was crowd on fhe stage however fhere was no light on fbe stage aad on hearmg fhe cries of Teju Raoi, he came fhere & lifted him, took him near fhe house of one Chaadmal and saw fhe iajuries on his neck, In fhe cross exaixmiaAioa also he has categoricaUy stated fhat it is fhe light of fhe stage which was ofiF, Statement of Narendra Prasad (P.W.-5) also makes it ctear fhat iaimediately after fhe iacident, victim Tejuram had iiiforcaed him fhat it is accused/appeUant wha had assaiilted tiim wifh fhe blade, FurUier as per ffaie spot map Ex.P/18, prepared by Chh^an Dave (P.W.-8) it is apparent fhat two Ught poles were fhere near the stage^ vi:'»sm»..G.uwse?Kw.^--:.>iWsssSii ..^^^.^w^^^^w.^-^ ^^^:^ ^ /^^\ 15, Considermg ttie evidence of fhese witaesses it ckaa be safety said tfaat at lee^t tfae tight was good enough to idaent^fy fhe accused/appeUa&t aad eveix iffor sometime there was no Ught on the stage, fhe accused/appeUaat aajGtaat tadke advante^e ofthe same, jGrom fhe medical report offhe victim aad fhe evidence avaflable on record, fhis Cozut is of tiie finn view fhat the trial Coiirt has not erred ia axiy msoDiier in <lconvicting fhe accused/appeUant for ffeie ojGFence under Sectiou 308 of fhe IPC.' So far as the sentence part of the accused/appeBaat is conceraed^ consMering fhe fact fhat fhe incident had taken place ia the year 1993 ie. about 17 years back, ends ofjustice would be serured if^fte saitence of rigorous iinprisonment fbr fhree years is rediiced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Mowever, the fiae amount of Rs, 2,000 is enhaaced to the amount ofRs. 7,000 m addition to Rs, 2000 alrcady awarded aad out ofwhich Rs. 6,000 be gwen to fhe victim as compensation- If fhe same is not paid to fhe victim withia a period of four monfhs from tlie date of receipt of copy of tliis order, (he appeUant sbaU be Uabte to undex^o fiirfher rigorous mipri^)nment of six monfhs, r Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge