E, llIIHIHHIWill“!!! J 061213 atrr‘c L ,ai :agpm: ' A ' L)3 'g x.LE1 . a - > ’ a» f Maw” Pmawh * 'v ‘ ”w ’{w $ i thumbs V tt? c ymmal limegr ssgéctigy‘ifgk com. ‘m 9f f‘ yr imiwi ~ L 1; ,. a, !WW “i g1 «xx“xx“wunx;{nuW\%wv VWWH . K r 7- > ‘ acoUR"? FEE; ) E ”W '\) H. \ ‘9‘ §‘\%1y w E V k .4 * ‘ In tha: Nigh {,0L1-+ af T~i ' r‘: . yz: M ‘3‘?” c3 I 4E.‘ tqh a J'gh“. haim, ’L 1 > K ' ‘ w}. imp g4 .- bf q 0r. 7' I w fa $35“ M" 37’ vewsg um / of Frmkmgap?) w k,kw\ § l ‘L _ ” ’‘ V ,‘:..:73 aE. wmwQin‘k-rza‘t ”um ‘ v3? Magi dam, ‘ { ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE $HRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, J. ' ~.—--.g. Criminal Appeal No.47 of 1996 ‘ Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of V Criminal Procedure l Present: Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, counsel forthe appellant. ‘ ShrlnNeeraj Mehta, Panel Lawyer for the‘State. Judgment (7m April, 2010) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.12.1995 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Link Court at Korba in Sessions Trial No.115/1988, convicting the accused / appellant for the offence punishableunder Section 307 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rl for three years and pay tine of Rs.1 ,000/—, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for three months. 2) Case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 12.06.1987 at about 9.25 pm FIR (EXP/1) was lodged by Laxman Prasad, PW/2 aiieging that, on that day between 7 - 7.30pm the accusedlappellant assaulted ‘, one Rajkumar.(PW/1) and when he tried to intervene, accusedlappellant t ‘Ir‘x ' assaulted him too with the beetle ax'e. 1 3) So as to hold the accusediappellant guilty, prosecution has examined nine witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accusediappellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of , 0 5% E) t Appeuant Ram Kishan Versus Respondent State of Madhya Pradesh CW? Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. ’ 4) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Cdurt has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant for the offence as mentioned above. Hence, the present appeal. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6) Rajkumar (PW/1) has stated that on the date of the incident, there was some quarrel between his children and the children of accused/ appellant; ‘when his‘ son Premchand informed him about the said quarrel, he scolded him and advised him not to go out. Thereafter, the accused /appellant who was his neighbour came out from his house and started abusing him; when he asked the accused/appeliant not to abuse him, then also the accused/appellant continued to do so, thereupon, when Rajkumar started abusing the accused lappellant, he went inside his house and brought a beetle axe and assaulted him, as a result of which he sustained injury on his right hand, right cheek, finger of right hand and on the right side of his chest. He further stated that thereafter he became unconscious and was taken to the hospitafgr where he was treated for about 10-15 days, Statement of this witness has been duly supported by his wife Kektibai (PW/7), who had also seen the entire incident. PWI2 Laxman Prasad, lodger of the FIR stated that when he . reached the spot, ‘he‘ was. informed by the people that the accused/appellant assaulted Rajkumar and he saw the accused/appellant running from the spot carrying beetle axe in his hand. PW/3 Girwar Ram, PW/4 Kaushalyabai, PW/6 Harprasad and PW/8 W“ Salikram have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostiie. 7) Dr GL Wadhwani (PW/9), who had examined and Heated the victim Rajkumar vide his report EXP/1O found the foHowing injuries: ‘ He has stated that he advised Rajkumar for X-ray and in x-ray report EXP/14 no fracture was found. He has also stated that the injuries sustained by Rajkumar were simple in nature. 8) A careful perusal of the evidence of the witnesses makes it clear that the incident has taken place on account of trivial issue of a quarrel between children of the accused/appellant and the vi tim and as a result of which accused/appellant assaulted Rajkumar. The nature of the injuries sustained by Rajkumar makes it clear that no bony injury was j sustained by him and all the injuries were simple in nature. ’ 9) Considering ail the relevant aspects of the case, it wiil not be safe for this Court to convict the accusedfappellant for the offence ‘ punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, but he is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC. ‘m'?! 1) lncised wound on right side of face 2cm X 1cm 2) lncised wound over right chest wall 1 0cm X 2cm X 2cm 3) incised wound over anterior‘ surface of upper third of right forearm 5cm X 20m X 2cm 4) V incised wound over anterior surface of right elbow 12cm X 1/4 cm X 114 cm 5) incised wound, over lower third of. right forearm 3cm X 1cm X 1cm 6) incised wound over right little finger 6cm X 2 cm X bone deep 7) Abrasion 1 X 1cm over left elbow joint. 10) At this stage, it has been submitted by learned counse! for the appellant that the appellant has already remained in jail for about 24 days; the incident had taken place on account of the trivial‘dispute between the children of the victim and the appellant; no useful purpose would be served in sending him again to jail and it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period salready undergone by him. He further submitted that the appellant. is willing to compensate the victim by paying adequate i compensation. To this, counsel for the State has no serious objection. 11) ln vieilv of the above, the appeal is partty allowed. :l3he conviction of the accused l appellant for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC is altered to Section 324 of the IPC. “Therefore, sentence of three years imposed on the accused [appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, in lieu thereof, hne amount of Rs.1,000f- imposed by ;the trial court is enhanced to Rs.16,000/-, out of which, an amount of Rs.15,000/— shall be given to the victim as compensation. lf this amount of Rs.15,000/— is not paid to the victim Within a period of four months froam today, the sentence awarded by the Court below shall stand restored. 12) Appeal, thus partly succeeds. Sd/- ' ’Pritinker Diwaker ‘ Judge padma