' ' ’ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATV BILA$PUR _ g’ _ (Hon; Mr. Justice Ptitinker Diwaker) ‘ x _ } Criminal Appeal No 777 0f 2006 i é _ V ¢ Shn K K Smgh counsel forthe appekant _ Shn Valbhav Goverdhan Pane! Lawyer for the ’* ' respondent/State X x CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER sECTION 374 OF THE CODE OF ’ CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ‘ ;,IUDGIvIENTf l J (2210 zoas) ’ I ‘ ‘ ‘ 5‘ ; The appeHant In this appeal Is camng In question the Iegahty, I gvahdlty and propnety of the judgment dated 27 9 2006 passed by the r :Addltlonal Sessmns Judge Bastar (Jagdaipur) In Sessmns Trial No E123/2005 conVIctIng the accused/appellant under Sections 307 and i324 of the Indian Penat Code and sentencmg him to undergo ;ngorous Impnsonment for seven years With fine of Rs 1000 and _ :rlgorous Imprisonment for two years respectlveiy, With defauit |stlpulatlons 2 Brief facts gIVIng rise to this appeal are that on 29 12 2004 at Eabout 5 pm Injured Kanglu and Sohan atong With one Ralaram were ' §returmng from the house of one Ramsmgh Netam and as soon as V‘ gthey reached near the house of Agnu accused/appellant assaulted , a ,them With the help of axe lt Is alleged that there was some dispute ‘ §between accused/appellant and the complalnant party over the ¥ dlstrlbutlon of a trIVIal sum of Rs 100 lt is the further case of the ";prosecutton that while Imured Sohan was trying to snatch the axe from the accused/appellant the handle thereof got broken _ , b Q Thereafter the appellant went to his house and came back wrthr ' . A ¢ APPELLANT _ Arjun $mgh son of Samnath Gcnd aged about 32 years resident of Udldgaon outpost Vishrampun Police ) I ' ‘ Station Keshkal DistrictBastaMCG) § ’ _ ‘ ‘ VERSUS . ; R'ESPONDENT ‘f State of Chhattisgarh, through Po‘iice Station‘Vishrampuri, District Bastar { S t i § E z ‘ 5L Counsel for the appellant submits that the incident had takené ‘ place all of a sudden and there was no prior intention on the part of the accused/appellant to commit the murder of Intured Sohan and Kanglu He submrts that the appellant and the complainant party are very poor and the meldent had taken place only over the distribution of petty sum of Rs 100 He further submits that looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the Injured persons the offence under Section 307 IPC would not be attracted and at best the act of the 'appeliant may fan under sectron 325 IPC 6 On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supportS\ I the judgment impugned and submits that Dr G R Dhanella (PW-5) who medically examined Injured Sohan has noticed followmg injuries _r on his body 2 #— :anbth‘er axe and assaulted injured persons as a result of which both of them received grievous Injuries on various parts of their body Subsequently, the matter was reported to the pollce by Ram Slngh (P W 3) who ls the eye Witness to the mCIdent and based on that the FIR (Ex P/1) was registered Both the Injured persons were sent for medrcal examination to Commumty Health Centre Vlshrampurl where Dr G R Dhanehya (PW 5) examined them and gave his report Ex -8 and P 13 regarding both the Injured persons L to ,t. 3 So as to prove the guilt of the accused prosecution has examined as many as 7 Witnesses Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case V» ./‘ " ' (i) " lnclsed wound m front of the nght ear In the size of 3 x 1/2 1/2 c m (ii) Inelsed wound on the left parletal region of the head In the5izeof3x1/2x1 cm 4: After hearing the parties the trial Courthas conVicted ,andi sentenced the accusedfappella'nt as mentioned above. Henc‘e this} gi appeaL ‘ : t/t' ——z_ (m) (iv) lncised wound 9n the parietal region in the size of 2 x 1/2 - x V2 c.mi Bone Was found to be ‘cut. Ail the injuries have been opined to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon of3x lncised ‘/2X1 wound c.m; on the centre-of the forehead ih the siz w r i i { es regards the injuries sustained by injured Kangiu, this witness has 5i e inoticed following injuries on' his. body: j (i) . incised wound below the left eye in the size of 2 x Vzx 1: h‘A c.m. ‘ in the size of3 x 2 x 1; (iii) lncised wound on the left side of the neck in the size of - 3 x 2 x “/2 c.m. l ' All'the injuries have been opined to have been oausedi. by a sharp edged weapon \ ) (ii) incised wound on the forehead c.m. E He submits that all'the injuries have been caused with the .help of axe. He further submits that brutality on the part ' of the; amused/appellant can be determined looking to his act that when > the handle of the axe was broken, he rushed to his house andwcame a ’ back with another axe and again assaulted the injured persons. i According to him when the handle of the axe was broken, the _ acicusedfappellant had gone to his house to get another axe and _ thUs got sufficient time for his passion for assault to vanish bLit this : axe did not he again happen indulged in this in case, the assault rather after which coming show back with another (/7 ‘- _\_ l ,.\ submits that the statements of these two injured persons. witnesses He further are Kw ‘ __assaulted the injured persons. He further/sub ‘sustainedwere So fatal that injured Sohan rem s that the appellant \ was predetermined to do away with the injured {I supported by Ram Singh (PW-3) and Raja Ram' (PW-‘4) who‘haVe categorically stated as to the manner in which the accused/appeliant mits that the injuries ained hospitalized for three months Whereasinjured Kanglu remained hospitalized for‘one month, in connection with treatment. ‘ e ;8. Close scrutiny of the material available on record clearly reveals that Ram Singh (PW 3) and Raja Ram (PW-4) have duly isupported the eVidence of iniured Witnesses Sohan and Kanglu and stated that accused/appellant assaulted the injured persons With axe , land In the meanHme when the axe was broken he again went to his ”house came back wxth another axe and again started assaulting injured Sohan DrG R Dhanelia (PW-5) who medically examined i the injured‘ persons has also categorically stated that the injuries ésustained by them were dangerous to life. Thus in the midst of such la cogent and clinching evidence of the witnesses including that of the doctor who medically examined the injured persons contention of the appellant that the act of the accused/appellant would not fall under section 307 IPC but may come Within the purView of section g325-IPC, cannot be accepted. The intention of the accused in - Emaking such a bruta! assault is writ large. The findings recorded by the Court below cannot at all be termed to be faulted with. The approach of the trialCourt in convicting the acoused/appellant under section 307 IPC being legal gets the nod of approval by this Court. 1 r ._C/r_ :7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record Including the judgment impugne 9. Consequently, appeal being deplete of merit is destined to dismissal. Dismissal would be the ultimate note. . 5d]- ,'\\Pritinkér Diwaker Judge ; ‘ ‘ 5 \. 7 NW K y a i as”. NM - _ ‘ ‘ wes“ ’1, _ d ‘ e