f^/ ^v^ fe'^:.^ •^T"---^fv'.-- . T ^' •^- ^Fooooo'e^" "affotteJ by the ^h Court legaf Services Comm?{^z m 1HISHIGH COURT OF JIDICAIURS AT-JABALPUR^.P. Crimjnal Appeal No.s<s<a-s of 1999. APPSLL^iN T S- ( IN JAIL) Lakhmoo S/o Pa'iduMadiya, aged about ag^years, R/o Chhind gur, P. S. Darbha, DistrLct- Bastar^^r.P, ^ -versus- RSSPCND^TS Ihe State ofMsdhya Pra3e&^/ MmOR^DlM OF CRIMIHAL APPSAL INDSR SEC'EECN 374(11) OF IHS CODS OF CRD1INAL PROGiEDURS. M ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA^i BILASPUR Singje Bench:- Hbn'ble Shn Justice C^sirendra Mishra Criminal Aopeai No. 3003 of 1999 J^ppeltant Lsdkhmoo ^ Vs Respondent SEsfte ©fOihatSisgarh AppeJlant by Shri Abhay Tiwari, Advocate. State by Shri Prafull Bharat, Panel Law^er. JUDGEWIENT (passed onj^S^OOS) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (II) of th^ Codo of Criminai Procedure as he has b@@n convicted by tho illrd Additional Se^ions Judge, Bastar vide order dated 06.09.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 183/1998 holding the appellant guilty of offence under Section 307 of the indian Penal Code and convicted him by rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appea! are that the appeliant js the n©phewof complainant namely Sadhu and he resided with him. The compialnant Sadhu lodged a report on 19.06.1997 stating that the appellant ieft his house on 18.06.1997 without informing him and therefore, he ran after him to catch him whereupon the appellant snatchect the axe from one Lachchu and assaulted him on his neck and as a result the complainant fell on the floor and thereafter Lachchu ^natched his axe from the appellant. The complainant was taken to the police station where report of Ex.P/1 was regjstered. The compiainant was sent for medical examination. The axe and clothings were seized during investigation and the same w©resent for chemicat examination. Thereaft^r, diary statement of the compiainant was recorded and chargesheot was filed against the appellant. After committal of tbe case by the Judicial Magistrate First -2- ^ Class, charge under Section 307 of the IPC was framed and the prosecution examined in all eight witnesses in support ofhiscase and the learned trial Court after conducting examination ofthe appellant convicted him as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the appeliant. 3. Learned counsel forthe appellant has basically challenged the impugned order of conviction on the ground that though there was sufficient evidence avaiiable on record to show that the appellant was a person of unsound rrlind and even then, the Court below has not considered this fact and heid that theappeiiant has not been able to prove his insanity as no medical evid^nce has been produced on b^haif of th^ appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that a single blow on the neck of the complainant is attributed to the present appellant, which was not sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course- !n support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in f992 C^.LJ. 609 m the matter of ^&ff®aft Vs. State ^" UR and submits that on the basis of causing of single injury in the back of neck, inference of intention to cause murder should not be drawn from the evidence avaitable on reoord as no motive is attributect to the appellant and the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed is suggestive of the fact that the appsHant was a person of unsound mind. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeilant is in jail since19.06.1997 and as such he has atready completed sentence of about eight years. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that taking into consideration that the appellant assaulted the complainant by axe on his neck and further considering the material available cn record, offence uncler Section 307 of the IPC has b©@n proved anas no intorference is calted for in the instant appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the material available on records. S. So far as the insanity of the appellant is concerned admittedly there is no medical evidence on record in support of the cortention of the appellant that he was a person of unsound mind but the manner in which the -3- ® inciclent is alieged to have been eommitted by the present appellant and also the fact that no motive or preparation has been attributed to the appellant to commit the above offence as the whole incident occurred in a spur of moment when the complainant was trying to stop the appellant from going out of his house on She apprehension that he may quarrei with someone, go to show that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause death ofthe complainant. 7. Thus, taking into consideratlon the evidence of the complainant and the over all material avallable on record, 1 am of the opinion that in the peculiar circutristances of the case. the conviction can be altered to be under Section 326 of the IPC. As a result, the appeal succeeds and js allowed in part. The conviction under Section 307 of the IPC is converted to under Section 326 lof the IPC andthe sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. The appellant shall be released forthwith if he is otherwise not detained in connection with some other offence. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge KH^