/ IN ENE HJZQ‘I CUURT GF' MwriTQ P‘bJam‘“ .r “WM “mm ii ii ii CK}: MIA *AL “‘L’PE 3L NO ’9 4. 0 v . ark a I mppellarwA: f” > 1. Vedram mu OE Mlkund Satngrfi/ Fe! y ; 1 w JumnLQUR CF0000057 . “’Wiii 4 aged abaut 35 yrs / * 2; Sukhchen ma @£ mlmnc? $atlf-iné &gaa away/t 2a 371:5. J‘ vi llage Béinagggx Mungeli maat Biiaspux 'ézip: Jaw Lemaenw cw P $ M:‘ VQI‘SIEE ) Vant g- £3Jéé1'te em? Lvwicmmw. usxs 333/34 :pc cmmNnffL Appmgg m ma mgmom Egan c,‘ Rm @ / H (‘U‘ OF {EHHAm5éARé—i AT EILASP $mg!e Baruch ; Hon'b§g Mr. Jmgécg Pri‘rmkgr Diwakgr Criminal Apgem N9. 35§ 9f 3394 Smt Kim!) Jain, cmmsgi. far the appeiignfs, Shri Vivek Shawna P g fov fHe Stafa/‘resaonden’r IMIVAL APPEAL UNIDE§ 5E6“! IGN 374 Q? YHE SOD‘: CQIMINAL PROiitbkfRE QRDEg ‘ ‘ (2a 04 20m) Presem' appgai msg< 9L3? m“ Thg Iudammf and order“ dafed 23 03 94 p&sed by 4"!” Add.hem5 Sessmns Judge, Link Cour‘l’, Munge!i, Dis‘rt Biiaspur in Sessions Trial Nat 473/1992 canvicfing fhe accused/appdégn’rs for The offences pumshade umder S cTmns 33? read wr‘h Sechon 34 of the Indian i’ena9 Ccde and san‘i’encing Them m undergo rigomus imprisenmem‘ far fhr'ee years, 2‘. Brief fac’rs of ?he case are thaw an 24.6.1991 Fig. (Ex.P-1) was [nudged by [Emmam Shawna {PW—1f aElaging in w G" fha'f he is warking as Head Cansfabie and an fhm‘ day Wham he. Had gone To emage Barbaspur far enquiry an The eampiain? af accused/appeiiem No. 1 Vedmm, he was a$sau§fe§ by the accused/appeiiams wi‘m ’a‘he heip of dub as :1 resuh‘ 0f which M he susfamed vamcus :njgres an mm par? of his bodv On The bas:s of This “apart offences angier‘ Secnors 353 and 333/34 of The Indaan Pena! Cede were regisirered ggcxmsir the accused/appellanfs. Ham/ever, while framing The charges, The Hlé QRT UR R Q? 1 APPELLANTS Veamm scan af Mukmd Safnomi and anofher‘ Versus RESPONDENT The $fc‘re 0‘? Madhya Pradz3h ‘ (New Chha??isgar"h} court below has framed The charge, under Sec‘f‘mn 333/34 of The indiqn Pang! Cgdg, 3. So as t0 ho!d 10 accused/appeiian%5 guéh‘y, presgecu‘rien has examined Q$ mimy as Q9 wime$ses in supgaort af Hs case. $Tu‘remem‘s of The accusgdi’appeiéan‘ts ware aiso wear-dad under Secfkm 313 of Tha Codg cf Crimmai Procedure in which fhey denied fhe charges Ieve ied (means; Them and pheaded then" mnccence cmd faise Impilca‘Mn m ?%e case The? apart w§nesses namely Rama Smgh {DW-l), Sxyamm {DW 2) and Gajr'i (DW—S) have been examined by ‘fhe defence in supper? of HS 5ase. 4. After hearing fhe per-fries The fria! Caurj has convicwd and sentencee The accused/apgeiiame for The effences as men‘rianed abcve. Hence fhis appecd. ‘5; Counsei for we gppeimnw submifs that fhe appellan?s have been fodsely impiicmed simpiy because they have faiied to :sa‘risfy The ialegeE demand as made by campiainen? Rammqni Sher-ma (PW—1). She submiire The? during enquiry some amount was demandee by ‘rhe campmmen? one Ge ’rhe same was not given, a false new"? has been lodged) She (1&0 submits tha‘? bu’f for The camplainani‘ and fhe doemrs, ether wifnesses have not suppar’red the prasecuirign ease and haxie been declared 1 hosfile. She submi‘i‘s fha‘: defence wifnesses have cafegoricaiw J stated that the aceused/appeltants are very reputed persons ‘ of the viltage‘and they have been fatsety impttcated; Lastty she ‘ submits that the appetiants have atready remainedin jaii for abgut 20 days and if thts Cedrt csmes ta the canclusian that the appehants have eammitted the affence under Secticn 333/34 of the Indian Penal Cede then their sentence may be ¢ é‘ ‘ ‘ -‘ rgduced To The pericd aireacjy undgrgcng by them and $Qm$ fine qmagn? mgy bg imggsed an ilhgm.’ ?6. On The other hand counsei far fhe Smfe suppar'fs 1-212 § mpugned judgma‘r and suhmim fha‘? 1‘hg manner in which 'fhg ead Cgn$mb§e has ag; amirgd, n9 igniency my: be. shgwrg I a e f l f n‘ s nan ‘R D d iS Hy ‘L m iw \ F g m ade. [To i the accused/appelims. H submifs ”(hm a? fhe reiayan‘? 3‘1‘img campigimm was en his cim‘y mm, ’rheraor‘e, a§§ The ingredien’rs of Secid’on 333 of thg Endign Pancd Cade aha duiy ifmcfed in The presénf case. Hz submi’r fhm‘ cemiam? ammcmi Mishm {PW-1), r. NSK Chanda {PW—2) an Dr, £3 haf'ma (PW-‘3’} havz fu suppcsrted Thg gprgsecufign case, as1ly 5mm caunseE submh‘g ‘rh flag :rfr beiow had drgady rqken a very ianizn‘: view whiia s‘émencing ‘me ccused/appeiiams: and, tharefer-e, m inferference may be 7. I have heard counsai far the parties and perused fhe aterial: available en reccrd: . Complainant Rammani Shame hee smfed e? at the 'eiev‘l' fime he was wcrking as Head Cens'me and on 4.6.1991 he he received infarma1i9?; from The t accused/appeilan? No. 1 Vedmm The? certain viiiager‘s are harassing him and have damaged his sugarcane crap. Upan receiving The informa‘iian when he had gene Ta yiiiage Newaspur for enquiry, he reearded sti'aiemenis cf ihe wiinesses, where The viiiageré have infeemed him iha‘? accused/appeiiam Vedram has encroached upon one aere of 60w. iand, Viiiagers have made campiain? against? The accused/‘appeiiaai Na. 1 Vedram That he is n9? permiii‘ing viiiaae catiie TO drink waiter from ihe i weii which was near fa his fieia‘. Viiiagers have furiher v i i n M b ass m '8 Th ‘ran bl 2 d' W compigjned fha‘r wheneyer- the. women of vmage ga fa. The said well to fetch Tha wafer, accusedlappeléant Vedmm u$ed m misbehave with Thgm. He has further smted that whgn he was g‘cing 1'0 the fieid of ’rhe. accused/appa§§ani’ Na‘ 1 Vedr‘am, he has asked Thg vmagers Te accgmpcmy with. him but may have. r';efused by saying fha? fhe accused/appeilant NQ‘ 1 Vedmm is dr'imina! by naturg and, i’her’efar‘e, he 0.1% ajcne wgm‘ fro The field \Aliher‘e he qskzd The accused' Vedmm as Te why he is faiseiy i‘mplica’ring and as 1'0 why he is haraesing The viglagers and upen hearing The same accused Vedmm gm‘ annoyed by saying the? You have come f9 emuiry en my sampiaém‘ Then why yau are making alleghjiens agaihsf me and, Thereaffer‘, The eccused/appeha‘nw sukhchen and Vedmm Myeassauhed him xNji‘rh The help of eiub, as a resuiT 0f which, he susTained injuries on his hand and heed, He has sTaTed ThaT afTer susTaining injuries, he was iifTed by Mahendm Singh (PW-3) was Taken Tc palice 5TaTion Mungeii where he icdged The reperT Ex‘P-l and, ThereafTer', he was shifTed Tc Pubhe HeeiTh £em‘re, Mungeii where he was medicaiiy examined. In cross— exemingTicn aisg This wiTness sToed very firm and neThing sebsTgnTia! has“ teen sTeTed by him whichemay help The accused/appeiianTs. 9. Dr. N5 Chemdel (PW—2), whe hed examined The camplainanT and has given his reporT EXP—3 and has faundéx, fciiowing injuries:- (1} One iacenm’ed mend in The size 9f 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm i x 11'2 cm on The scaip beTween boTh The parieTai region. {2) ConTusion & Tena‘erness in The size of 8 cm X 6 cm on The righT hena‘. {3) ConTusien and abrasian in The si2e of é: cm x 4 cm x 1 cm on The forearm. ‘ g eh This wimess has camggricgiiy sm‘rzd man‘ ha has referred the patign’r for X-my and Tha X-my was parformed l by DrnVCS: Shawna (PW-7)— Radimogié’r and after X-r'ay he has given his repor’r’ExP—9 in which he has found fracTlEr'e in ’r'he right hand Qf The gomplainan‘r.‘ ‘ 10. Thus, it is cie-ar- ihcx’r statgmgni’ of The cempiainanf has ‘ been duiy car-mbormed by his medics! repgr‘TI cmd Dr“ N'S‘ g i Chanda! (PW-Z) and Dr. CS 5har'ma (PW—7) have supper-ted :‘di’he same: Mahendm Singh (PW-3) has nof suppgrfed ihe i preseeufion case and has been deciar‘ed hcsiiie, D,L. igiishm ii I (PW-4) has made a seizure of elub vide EXP—é and P-7 and has i suppem‘ed iae prosecution. case. Mangai Singh (PW-5) - seizure wifness has admif'ied his signature on the seizure memo but has noT suppar‘i'ed The seizures Though ihe defame Wi‘mzsses have stated Thai no such incidem‘ had faken place and. the accused/appellants are reputed persons of the viiiage, but their statements does not heip the accused/appeiiants in any mariner. 11. Minute scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses makes it very clear’thet on 24.06‘1991 the accuses/appeliants have assaulted the compiamant and caused him various mumes inciuding fracture and head injury and thereby they have committed the offence under Section 333/34 of Indian Pena! Code, therefore, their conviction is maintained. 12. Sotar as sentence part of the accused/appeiiants is concerned, looking to the fact that ineident had taken place about ZQ years back, sentenae of three years rigorous imprisonment l is reduced to that of one year rigorousi‘ Ju? Q imprisonment. However, the appeiiants are directed to deposit ‘ i an amoun‘l' of Rs. 10,000 as compensation in fhe Cour“: below wifhin a period of faur' monfhs from the date. of receipt 0f copy of 'rhis order and ou’r of This amcum‘ Rs.8,00Q sha” be given to The camplainant/vicfim. Failure, if any, in dep‘esiiing if The amouni' within The periaé stiipgiaied, would mgke the appeilunts liabie To be inside The jqii for a period of four m‘onfhs rigor-cue imprisonment Sd/— 13. Appeoi Thus partly oiiowed: . Pritinker Diwaker Judge iu‘