LC—78 3Tf^T ?)T f^TW TT^T 3TT^T ^)^i<=h @ 3^5T ^l^l^q, ^>Tn^l41<o, fs)<7'>l'M^< *41Ndl sbNlcb ^ 200 a^yr xra^ (^f^<^T) ^^TTW^ftn 3^T CRIMINAL <^Nt<n<fl'ri '^fFT^f '^\'fecst <P^^i< '^^tfm'STF^T ^PPEAL N0.1712/2000 APPELLANTS Vs RESPONDENT Naveen butt, S/o Santh Ram, alias Pita Shumba Sarthi, aged about 25 years. i. Santh Ram, alias Pita Shumba Sorthi, S/o Parshuram Sarthi, aged about 60 years. \\\ are resident of Village Padigaon, [hana Pusor, bistt. Raigarh (M.P.) Sta1|e of M.P. Distt. Magistrate, Pusor, bist?-. Raigarh (M.P.) Present: Mr. R.P. Tripathi. Advocate fqr the appellants. Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Panel Law^ ORAL nd Per Dhirendra Mishra. J; This oppeal is directed 'er for the respondent-State. JUbGMENT August. 2007) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9,th June, 2000 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, whereby learned Additiona Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.73/99 Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants under Sections 3CJ7/34, 294, 506-11 (B) of the IPC and sentenced each of them to ur^lergo R.I. for 10 years ond to pay a fine XI-HC—78 ^^ ^{WW^, ^Tfi-M'KS, (s|<?')|'M^< ^IHdl sb^ich •^ 200 ^TI^T ^T f<-li<=h 'cf^T 3Tr^T^FTRW 37Tt?T 'q^? ( 4<il?^<ST) ^^TTW^ft^ ^n^T - z-'l dt of Rs.500/-, in default of payjment two months; R.I. for 2 monthsj & Case of the prosecutioji, 12.15 p.m. complainant Ra^ Information Report in the Polj he had gone to his borewell persons were digging foundat| obadi land, which was allotte^ abusing him with filthy longualge to go from this way. Wher| required this way to go to threatened of his life. him to beat, at that time (PW-3) were present in the| them. In the meanwhile, and assaulted the complainan'1 down on the ground and hospital. The complainant The complainant was sent Health Centre, Pusor where found one lacerated wound oni size of 4 x icm. The complaijnant CM^f<n<fll ^1<-K^ '^\f^^ <Fa1^K ^'sfRm ^n^T of fine to further undergo R.I. for R.I. for 2 years respectively. i, in brief, is that on 24.1.1999 at about ^ishankar Choudhary lodged a First |ce Station Pusor mentioning therein that obout 11.00 a.m., at that time accused ton for construction of a house over the to them. Accused Naveen Dut started and stated that he shall not allow him the complainant protested that he is |his borewel, he was again abused and \ both the accused persons chased 'jbudi (PW-2), Ghurau <& Bhawani Shankar tank, they came there and separated Naveen brought lathi from his house on his head as a result of which he fell unconscious. He was taken to the the report in Police Station Pusor. For medical examination to Community Pr. AA.K. Patel (PW-4) examined him and jthe occipital region over the head in the was admitted in the hospital and he Ther^after Padbudi acciised be4ame lo|jged ^^.__ XI-HC—78 3:^£T^MT^T, ^^^1(5, fsl^l'Hy WHvi{ ^Wfh ^3?T1^T ^FT f^li^ ^[STT 3TR[?T $^^1<=^ ^ 200 an^yr 'q^w (4<iif^<^r) '^TT^R ^Tf^T 3:?T^T -z. was advised for X-ray and on found on the right parietal reg|i< The doctor has opined thojt complainant was sufficient to| nature. rjadiological examinQtion one fracture was ion. MLC report of the doctor is Ex.P-9. injury present over the head of ]cause death in the ordinory course of After completing the against the accused persons the IPC and after committal under aforesaid sections. The charges against the accus Statements of accused persor Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded that they were allotted abadi <=hl14{d<4S'i 'RTH^Tf ^f.'fe^ <F3l^l< '^5tfN-31T^T investigation, charge sheet was filed tnder Sections 294, 506-B, 307/34 of (earned trial court framed the charges prosecution in order to establish the ;^d persons examined 8 witnesses. 1s were recorded under Section 313 of ijinocence & false implication and stated |and under Indira Awaas Yozna, quarrel was only in relation to the all|5tment and the false report has been lodged. Accused persons have Jexamined one Mahabir Pradhan (bW-1) in their defence. Learned Additional Sess ons Judge after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the res^ective parties, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants, as menfioned hereinabove. Learned counsel for th0 offence has been deliberately appellant submits that genesis of the |suppressed, the quarrel, as it appears, XI-HC—78 3:wT ^)|<il<^<4, t$TH-yJI<S, fsf(?i)|-y^< 'WTcTT *^(ch ^n^T^Tl^ri^T TT^TT 3TR^T 5b<-ll<=h ^ 200 3TT^?T t^W ( lliG<?^<4^ ) '^T^R ^rit^T W^I -^. allotted abadi land. However, charge sheet has been filed 1| complainant from coming to| complainant was assaulted. It| Ravishankar Choudhary hasj deposition before the court| Santram caught hold of hi^ assaulted him by lathi, thougl^ as in biary statement of <=fr)i<4f<n<4li ^i^<?il ^l^^ <psi<^i< ^3tRR3^T occurred because of the ccjnstruction by the appellants over the |)n thebasis of partisan investigation the [hat the accused persons obstructed the his borewel and in that process the |was further contended that comptainant made material improvements in his |as he has stated that Gppellant No.2- hands and thereafter appellant No.l this version is missing in the FIR as well Ex.b-1. It was further argued that after the incident, gained his immediatelyafter the inciden investigating officer has admjtted this fact that accused Naveen t)ut was sent for medical examincjition but his injury report has not been adduced in the evidence. It vfas also argued that if the version of the complainant is to be believe(p, then he was unconscious immediately consciousness only in the hospital and in that case FIR, allegedly l|)dged by him in the Police Station becomes a suspicious document. On the other hand, lea^ned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that conviction is based on ^he testimony of injured complainant as also three other eyewitnesse who have stated specific role played by both the accused persons in ojssaulting the complainant. Version of the complainant and eyewitness^s is duly corroborated by the injury XI-HC—78 ® •5^ ^ll-lll^, ^Tfl'H^KS, Rl^iy^ 3T1^T ?FT f<^i<=h Tl^T ^TT^T $f)^i<=t) ^llNdl ^^l* •^ 200 W^ 'q^? (^f^^) '^iTW^f^T ^TT^T -c' report of Ex.P-9 as also X-ji|ray, which has been proved by Dr. M.b. Joshi (PW-7). Injury was 4" the vital part of the head and as per radiological examination repojrt occipital bone was found fractured. I have heard Mr. R.P. Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Panel LG(A|yer for the respondent/State. Having heard learned the record including the impL|gned judgment. So far as the convicti4n of the appellants under Section 307/34 of IPC is concerned, taking fracture injury on the occi| weapon of offence, manner which assault was made, the was made with an intention such, the trial court has no convicting the appellants undi Now coming to th( prosecution has been able evidence the involvement of <=bl<Ll(<n<fl<1 TTTR^?f ^f.fe^ iFal^K ^3?Rma?n^T 'ripathi, Advocate for the appellants and counsel for the parties, I have perused |nto consideration the injury report given by br. M.K. Patel (PW-4), cc|nsidering that the complainant sustained )ital region and further considering the |of assault and the part of the body on jfinding of the trial court that the assault l-o cause death cannot be faulted and os committed any illegality or infirmity in sr Section 307/34 of IPC. second question that whether the |o establish by reliable and trustworthy jthe appellants in the crime in question is concerned, PW-1 RavishankarJ' Choudhary has stated that on the date of incident he had gone to h|is borewel through his field, however, he XI-9C—78 3-^T ^l^l^^l, ^TH^'KS, fsl^KH^ Nl^dl ^N(ch •^ 200 ^TT^T ^T [<^|ch 'cT^H 3TT^T $ti^|ci>) 3?T^T ^T5^ ( ^?1^<^ ) was stopped by the accused perso|is togo through that way. When he to his borewel, he was abused by fj was also threatened that they sha| Naveen butt ran to his house/br^ flee from the place of occurrenc{ and accused Naveen assaulted on became unconscious and fell down] at the timeof incident Panbudi (P\ were present and thereafter he lo{jged In the cross examination ofl statement of Ex.D-1 has been poi| Santram caught hold of him is missing. However, Panbudi (PW-2^ (P.W.-5) have corroborated the s-| that when Ravishankar was (Santram) caught hold of him and lathi on his head as a result of whil Learned counsel for the| credibility of these witnesse^ cbi^t<n<fl'i ^i^^T ^f^^i' <psi^i< ^^tRman^T saying that they shall not permit him >rotested that this is the only way to go Ithy language by accused persons and he murder him. In the meanwhile, accused >ught a lathi and when he was trying to 2, accused Santram caught hold of him \\s head by lathi as a result of which he on the ground. He further stated that V-2), Bhawani Shankar (PW-3) & Ghurau the report. PW-1 Ravishankar omission in the diary ited out in which the fact that accused ^nissing. Even in the FIR this fact is Bhawani Shankar (P.W.-3), Sahnu Ram 1-atement of the comploiinant and stated co|ning from his bore, accused Tumba bccused Naveen Outt assaulted him with ibh Ravishankar fell down. appellant has tried to impeach the by branding them as interested XI-HC—78 3^cT ^1^1<7'>^, ^Tll'y^KS, [s)01'H^< ^Wvi\ ^Wfh •^ 200 3n^r xrsra? (4^?1<S<^) ^n^T^T ^i^ 'cT^T'STT^T ^-RT^ 'i^TW^rftTT ^TI^T witnesses, QS they are servant and the considered opinion of this Courft inspired confidence and therefore in mentioning the foct that he was of incident looses its relevance in witnesses have stated on oath abolit statement of complQinant to that e-\ In the light of the aforesojid opinion that the judgment of the tr|i of evidence available on record interference. Now coming to the question learned counsel for the appellants whiie maintaining their conviction <^i^f<n<fl'ri <-ii<-{<?ff '^..'fe1^ 'rf^R^R ^^TfOT^TT^T >rother of the complainant. However/in the version given by these witnesses )mission on the part of the complainant :aught by accused Santram at the time t-he light of the fact that other three the said fact and corroborated the ffect. discussion, I am of the considered |ial court is based on sound appreci'Qtion {^nd the same does not calt for any |)f sentence imposed on the appellants, ^ubmits that appellant Santram was 60 years old at the time of inciderjt and therefore, while imposing the sentence the trial court ought to hc|ve considered the same. In the result, the appeal fi(ed by the appellants is partly allowed nder Sections 307/34, 294 <& 506-11 (B) of the IPC. Hbwever, their sen|ence under Section 307/34 is reduced to R.I. for 3 years in place of RJ. f^r 10 years. It is stated that appellant No.l-Naveen butt is in custody for |ast more than 7 years, thereby he has XI-HC—78 ^v^ r^iqi^^l, ?$Tf1-y<t(S, (sl^l^^ W^^\ sh^lch ^ 200 3TT^?T V ( ^f^<^T) ^STI^T ?TF f^-ljch ^SH 3T^T $h^|ich Roshan/- '^IT^R'5crf^TT'3?T^I already served the sentence impot liberty forthwith if he is not requirjed However, appellant No.2-SQ|itram the trial court in order to underg| him and his bail bonds are cancelled. sed upon him, therefore, he be set at ed in any other case. is directed to surrender before the remaining sentence imposed upon CM^I<n^1i ^|^<?1? 'fiffe^t <f^^i< "^" 3tRp7 ^n^T Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge