kN HIGII GOURT ’OF GHHATTE$GARH= ’A'I‘ ¥BILASPURc CRIMmAEimMAE ma s‘m’m/mgé é Eéajesh Patwa and ors. V. State of Chhgimisgarh. Shri ‘Prabhakar ’ Singh Chandel ior the appellants. Shrl Ranveersingh Government Advocate for Re§p0nde int/State . The appellantsabeing aggri‘-gved by the judgment dt. 9.12.1996 delivered in Session Triak Nool33/1991rby learngd Ilnd Additlonal ' Sessiens Judge, Raipur convicting each of the appellant under sectlon 307 of the Indlan Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rsol 009/- each and :Ln default of paymnt o£ £ine to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment the appellants have filed this appeal. e en 20 The prosecution case in brlef is. that on the fateful day when Paw 3 Durgaprasad was standing 1n a cement shop and was talking to one Ravlndra Kama? ‘ Asharya, 1the appel lants Rajesh and Sadashiv came no him and lmuted him to go £or a Betel. The complainant relylng upon them went to a mm-little distance.but, all of a sudden these two persons with three unknown persons apprehended him and started causing Lnjurles to him by means of Kn1£e/sharp cutting weapon. When the complalnant. Durgap asad raised m “JUDGHENT” By Hon" ble Aq§ *eh&e£ Justice . (;2o)’éw Cri oAJVe . 2 2?8/1995 . alarm, all the accused boarded 1n a mute Car and fled away fram the spot..- The report (Ex..P.12) was registered on the heels of Dehati Nalism The victlm was referred to the heapital,where, he was examined, his inJuries were repaired and he was provided proper medical wsiaeance¢fter making further Investigation and after reccrding the statements of the wltnesses and a£ter obtaining the medical report/oplnxon. on cempletion cf the investigation. the Police Agency flled the challang 3. As the accused persens abJured the guilt ana tookfheplea of false implication, they were put to trlal. The prosecutlon in support o£ its case examined as many as 14 witnesses. The defence was given proper opportunity, but. they did not \J, choose to examine any defence witness. A£ter hearing the parties. the learnee trial Court convicted and sentenced the accusedYas-detailed amve c 4 C Learneé counsel for thee appellants submitted that the independent witnesses of the prosecution did not support the version of P.W.3— Durgaprasad and s said that the injuries were dangerous to Lite and in all probabilities were likely to lead to death; Trial Court was unjustified in convicting the appellants and in any case, the appellants could not be convicted for commission of the of£ence under 5.307 of the Indian Penal Code a to ! k“ XX A Eggs“ (.3.) Cri. Apgeal 30.2278/1996. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the complainant Eurgaprasad (PW 3) has suf£ered as many as 22 injuries whJ.ch would clearly show the intention 0£ the accused persons. According to him the injuries are not on the vital part of the body, but, 22 cut injuries to a person would Certainly project. the intention of the accuse§ persons. 6. I have heard the parties and have gone through the records. The prosecutlon in support of ltsQcase regardlng the incident, had examined P.W.5 Ravindra Acharya and Puma-Egamkashyap as the eye-witnesses. Unfortmnately these tm witnesses dld not support the prosecution and were declared hostlle. The prosecutlon to prove the circumstances and immediate conduct o£ the complaenant had examined P‘w.4-Purushottam Sonkar. From the statement of P.W.4~Purushottam Sonkar it simply appears that he reached the spot after hearing the alarmsraised by Durgaprasad. This witness supports the statement of P.W.3 Durgaprasad only to the extent that immedlately after the said incident he was informed by the said Durgaprasad that the present appellants had caused these 1njuries. As the eye-witneses have been turned hostile, we are left with the statement of complainant alone . a x 7. According to the complainant he was invited by Rajesh and Sadashiv. He rurther says that they were also accompanied by accused ViJay Kumar. These three and other three who could not be identifiedby him apprehended him and caused % @ Cri. Appeal No.2278/1996. (n40) hm jur by eans oi Knife. In his examination— n-chief but. for a general statement against the C appellant Rash and VLJay Kumar he did not say thing but. agnst accused Sadashlv. he clearly menticri that. aaashxv caused him injuries by means of Knfe ower, in para-5 of hls statement he statd that e frst inJury was caused to him by sadashv and immediately thereafter he suffered ,v u depression ad. tereafter,-he was attacked by other rom his statement. it does not apper that he ot a truthful w1tness. He has sufred as man s 22 injuries and 1t is not expecte g a tim of such an assault that he weuld net ake he real miscreants answerable to the charge bt. would‘falsely implicate some other persens His statement coupled with the statements of 1301.13 Dr. Rekha Gupta would clearly show: that he ha suf£ered a many as 22 injuries. The medical {s report/ xP.13 ; the correctness of which has not been challned. Her crosScexamination also shows that the victim had suffered number of injuries on his thghs, buttocks. left wrist and such other lower as li e . mbs of th body d s $ Dr. Rha Agrawal did not say that the ijures were dangerous to life and were likely to cuse death or were simple in nature. She simply stated tat ffurther verification she had referred the inred to the surgical experts Unfortunately in place f examning the Surgeon who had repaired the ries, the prosecution Agency examined P.W.9 S.C Bsnoi, adlogist. The said Radiologist simply proved the Xwray plate and said that Dr. BainerJee his“ , l 1nies m i je y al g S i. Hev e tn i x s n h personal F a :Ls n fe y a d b vic m t s, u .‘ ‘E. a eg i ek 8 . ni a h orw ju o i inJu i Rio @ (.5.)& < : g CrilAppéal No¢2278/1996. gave the report at Ex.P.10.g; The report. (Ex.P.10} and Ex.P.10-A show that the abdominal cavity was normal and both the kidneys were functiqriing properly. ExoPdOA says that the patient did not suffer any manna internal injujzes. “ g} “R05. 9. nonthe appreciatih? of records I am unable to hold that'the appellants have'been falsely implicated. P,W¢3-Durgaprasad is a trathful witness. The findings recorded by the court-below that the appellants were involved in $ncommission of offence, cannot be faulted withTThe conviction o£ each of the appellant £0}: commission of the offence under 5.307 IPC. does not appear to be bad“ 10. Shri Prabhakar Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the court below was unjustified in awarding 7 years rigorous imprisonment and the sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by each of the appellant. According to him the appellant No.2-r Sadashiv has alreadyeundergone the entire sentence} Vijay Kumar has undergone more than 6 years, while the appellant Rajesh has undergoné‘halmost 4V2 yrsg‘. 11¢ that the learned Trial Court was justified in awarding the said sentence, but. if thiscourtwants to interfere on the question of sentence,then. he would leave the matter to the discretion of the COurt v Learned counsel for the State submits 12. Though, different sentences for commission of the same offence are not required to be awarded but present is a case where one of tl’e appellants \ ‘ (05o)iair Cri . sAppee-l mo .2 218/ 1996 . has undergone the entire sentence. while the other two have undergone the substantial substantive jail sentence . 13 .‘ The appealgn the question of sentence is allewed. The‘ sentences awarded to each of the appellant are reduced to the period already undergone. However, the imposition of fine and the default sentences are maintaineé. If the said amount is ‘recovered, the entire amount be paid to the a complainant after due verification.» . 14. The appeal to thex extent indicated above, is, allowed,and In£onm immediately so thatzthe releaseawarrantss-are preparedr and the aceused pwsonSI‘who are injailmayilbe released, iif, they:haveealxeadyédeposited the-amountwx g / o£ fimeséhr the learned trial Court Certified copy: in 3 days} . y t n Sdl- Am'ng Chief Justice zoLikwwoeé‘f-g 1 i