XLHc-22 HIGH COURT OF CRA. (:HHA‘I‘TISGARH AT 3!].A3PUR N0;T29 OF 2005 JUSTICE DHIREHDRA MISHRA 8.3. HON’BLE SHRI' APPELLAN’I” ‘ : Tangar S/o Shri Bhartbari R/o Semngdag P/S Kusmj, Distt. Sarguja CG. W 1. State of Chhattisgarh Thmugh P/S Sarguja, Distt. Sarguja, C.G. 25.10.2007 Shri Ashok Dixit, Shn' Sandip Yadav, This criminal ap conviction and ordcr o passed in S.T.No. 38 Sessions Judge (FTC), A under Secu'on 307, 3 sentenced him to undergo Rs.1000] -, in default of SI for 6 months and to RS500] -, in default of for 3 vmonths Iespeotn‘felyi directed to run concunently. 2. Case of the prosedution, about 7.00 a.m. When‘ c‘mmsel for the appellant. v Dy GA‘for the State. is directed against the judgment of senwnce dated 31“ Januaxy 2005 [O3 whereby learned Ill Addiu'onal bikapur has convicted the appellant 4 of the Indian Pwal Code and RI for 10 yeaxs & pay a une of payment of due to undergo additional undergo RI for 1 year 8o pay a nne of paftyment of nae to undergo additional SI Both the sentences have been in brief, is that on 16.3.2003 at the complainant Jagfannntiaijvas breast feeding her child [Pshish in the courtyaxd, the accused came and enquired aboui complainant denied the them. the accused assaul she sustained injuries 1 assaulted her child Ashi: Iight eye. Matimm (MN—i wimessed bv Lundarlbai complainant ieported the 12.15 noon vide EXP] 1. the same day at about investigation weapon of appellant vide Ex.P[3. ’1 ‘Were sent for medical Center, Kusumi. Whereas injury report of after examining the weapi opined that the injurie complainant and Ashish ‘V L a opinion is Ex.P]8 and Pl? Injuxy \ i 3. After completing in the Court of Judicial During trial the pros cution examined seven witnesses. Thereafter, statement of e accused c his wife and children and when the allegation that she has concealed ted her with axe, as a Iesult of which )ver her head. The accused also ah, who sustained injuries helow his i) intervened. The incident was also (PW-6) and Shamibai (PW-7). The matter in Police Statm'n Kusumi on Dming oh'ence axe was seized h‘om the ‘he complainant and her son Ashish examination to Community Health report of the complainant is EXP/5 Ashish is EXP/K Dr. T.Sai (PW~5) )n of oEence seized iiom the appellant s present over the person of the His could be caused by the axe. [vestigation charge sheet was died in ‘ agistrate First Class, Ambikapur. was recorded in which he XI-HC-22 denied the cimumstancg‘ prosecution case and pl 4. However,‘leamed parties mspecn'vc c nvicwd and accused] appellant as judgment. Leaxned counsel ii injuries present over the were not su$cient in the her death as the complaiJi and lodged the repoxt. T 5. yr V the appellant submits that the {bemon of complainant Jagwantinbai ordinary coulse of natute to cause ant personally came to police station ele is no evidence that she remained in hospital and only on injury sustained by her has been described grievous in na by the doctor and there is no bony injury present over her p rson. Similarly, the injury sustained by Ashish was also, simpl in nature. He further submits that there was no motive Wi the appellant forcausing the above injuries and in fact, the moment without any pmn 7, leained counsel appearing for the ted impugned judgnent of the trial 6. On the other hand State/mspondent suppox Court. is appearing against him, in the ed innocence and false implication. Gem-t aiter healing counsel for the the sentenced ntioned in pamgraph 1 of this incident occuned on the spur of Ledifation. [new 7. I have hcani Icarued counsel for the panics and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. Dr. 'I‘.Sai (PW-5) has ”*examined Jagwantinbai on 16.3.2003 and nou'ced b0 ne deep incised wound on the right tempoxal region of size 8 x 2 cm, cutting of temporal veins, swelling just 4 cm below injuiy No. 1 of size 6 x 4 cm and opined that injury No. 1 was caused by hani and sharp edged weapon and injury No. 2 was caused by blunt weapon and both the injuries were grievo in nature. He has also examined Ashish on 16.3.2003 and oticed incised wound on the lateml side of the right eye of siz 3 x 1 cm and opined that the said injuiy was caused by and sharp edgedweapon. Thus, mm the evidence of th doctor considering the natuxe of injun'es sustained by the complainant over vital part of her body head and the wea n of oh‘ence used for causing the above injmy, intention o the accused to cause death of the complainant has rightly been inferred by the lcamed trial Court. 9. Conviction of the lant is based on the statements of vicu'm Jagwantinbai as a1 the eyewitnesses namelv Matiram (PW-3) and Lundaribai .. wanna u h a l ( 10. PW-2 Jagwantinbé incident at about 7.00 a. with her child, the accus alkged that she‘ has hié axe, as a result ofwhich of her head and blood s child Ashish with axe o waé present in her ho there with axe. 'After EXP] 1. She has denie I anililosity she is falsely sustained the injuries as has not been able to im‘ her cmss—examination. PW-3 Matiram has he was sitting in/the feeding her son, when her with axe. The acc1 categorically stated that head of the complainant Similar is the statemen seen the appellant as Ashish. Defence has I cross-examination of 1 11. hlfse of Jagwaminbai, Who was breast Ii has stated that on the date of m. when she was sitting in her home ed came there armed with an axe and den, his wife and assaulted her with she sustained injuries on the backside tarted oozing. He also assaulted her r his right eye and at that time Mati e. Thereafter, the accused ded horn e incident she lodged the report of d the suggestion that because of old implicating the accused or that she she had fallen over stone. The defence geach the credibility of this Witness in also stated that at the u'me of incident e accused came there and assaulted He has the accused gave two blows of axe over and thereafter assaulted her son once. .t of Lundaribai (PW-6) who has also sawing Jagwaminbai and her son Lot been able to elicit anything in the drese witnesses, which makes their ised also assaulted her son. MaWW statements untrustworthy or umeliable. Hdwevcr, PW-7 Shantibai, who was also a witness to the incident, has not case and has turned hosn'le. 12. The trial Court re upon the statements of the victim and two eyewitnesses Ma ' am and Lundan' has held that the appellant was mspons' le for causing injuries to the complainant and her s Further placing reliance on the evidence of Dr. Sai it has been held that the injuries present over head of the complaimmt wele gxievous in natme, the same were caused by the axe seized fmm the accused and thus, intention of the appellant to cause death of the comylainant has been inferred. in the considered opinion of this Court conviction of the appellant under Seciion 307 of the IPC is based on the evidence available on record. 13. Learned counsel tor the aypellant submits that the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years, which is excessive and he is-in ‘ail since 17.3.2003 and as such, has already completed more than 4 years 7 months" jail sentence and in these circumstances, the jail sentence imposed upon him should be Ieduced suitably. l4. Taking into consid tion the cimumstances in whm‘h the oEence is committed by e appellant and also considering the fact that no motive has been attributed to the appellant for supportsd the prqsccuh‘ l“ ‘ o o . while maintaining conviction under commission of the Offence Section 307 of the IPC ends ofjustice would be served if the jail ider Secu'on 307 of IPC is mduced to 1y, the appeal is partly allowed. t under Section 307 and 324 of IPC 3e of 10 vears’ RI under Sectbn 307 veaxs’ RI. However, due sentence ht by the trial Court shall mmain as Sdl— Dhirendra Mishra i Judge sentence of 10 years RI 1115 7 years RI. Acconiing Convicu'on of the appellau is maintained. Jail semen of IPC is mduced to 7 imposed upon the appella F it is. /. [new