(^^ ^»^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH. BILASPUR APPELU^NT/: (Accused) (In Jail) RESPONDENT: Criminal Appeal No.357 of 200S Manoj Kumar @ Manohar Sahu, a@ed 35 years, S/o Ajarram, Occupation Taitoriog, R/o Risai Para, Wiobi Chowk, Dhamtari, P.S. Dhamtart, Dtett. Dhamtari(C.G.) Versus State pf Chhattisgarh, ttirough the Station House Officer, City KolwaR. Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) ofthe Code ofCrtmlnal Pnocedwe, 1973} Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agr^vat, counsel forthe appeliant. Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Panel LawyerfortheState^respondent. Sinate Bench: HoR'ble Mr. T.P. Shaima. J ORALJUDGMEN^ fDelivered on 9th SeDtember. 2008) 1. This appeal is directed agalnst the judgment ot Gonviction and order of sentence dated 10th March, 2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No.214/2002, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge after hotdlng the appetent guilty for commjssion of offence of attempt tocommit murcter, convicted him under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years & pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month. 2. The judgment is challenged on the groun^ that wittiout any credible and reliable evklence, the trial Court has wnvteted and sentenced the appellant. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as also the record ofthetrial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argyed ttiat he is nok disputing the convSction of the appeliant, however, he wants to argue on the question (•' of sentence. He submitted that in the case of SetAtoR 307 of the 1 P.©., jn the absence ofany fatal injury, the appellant was hicystody from 27-2- 2002 to 30-4-2002 and after the date otjudgment he is in ©ustodysince 10.03.2005, thereby he has compteted 3 years 8 montte 4 days of jaW sentence, same is sufficient to meet the ends ofjustfoe. 5. Case of the prosecutjon, in brief, is that on 26-2-2002 at about 5 p.m. injured Smt. Vimta Bai <PW-2) was going to ease herself along with her aunt Kalabai @ Pusal srt Dhamtari. The appeUant cannewith knife and assautted Vimla Bai over her abd@men, thigh, knee, elbow and waist. He inflicted eight indsed wounds on her body out of whteh one was grievous in nature. The F.I.R. was lodgedvide Ex.P-2. InjuredVimla Baj was examined by Dr. Vijay Kumar who noticed eight jncls«jw©undson her body vide injury report Ex.P-12. Spot map was prepared vide EX.P- 11. Clothes of the injured were seized vide Ex.P-5. Knife, the weapon of offence, used for cutting vegetabtes was selzed from ttie appellait vide Ex.P-6 and the same was examined by Dr. Vijay Kumar vide EX.P-9A. 6. After investigation, charge sheet was flted before the Court of Chief Judiclal Magistrate, Dhamtari, who in turn, commttted ttie case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ratpur, from where leamed Addttional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, received the case on transfer for trial. 7. In order to establish charge against the accused, the proseaition has examined as many as ten witnesses. Statement of the aceused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which be denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evjdenc&, pleaded Innocence and false implicatjon. The aGGUsed/appellant has also adduced the defence evidence of Kanhaiyatal Sahu (OW-1) to show that he has not assautted the injured. 8. Evidence of Smt. Vimla Bai (R/V-2) is supported by the medicsri evidwce and same is suffident for conviction of the appeNant under Section 307 of the I.P.C. His conviction is based on reWabte and Glinching evidence. 9. As regards the questton of sentence, leamed counsel for the a^ellant has argued that the appetlant is in custody stn<^ (ast 3 years 8 months 4 days and he has caused no injury with intent to caiee the deatti of the injured. Although defence has not djsputed the conviGtion of the 3 appellant, Jt is revealed from the evidence that he has used the knife which was used for cutting vegetables, for assaulting the injureei. Length of the said kntfe is about 10 cms. (metallic part) i.e. 4 inches, maxjmiun width 1.5 cms. (approx.) i.e. 34 inch, ptestic handte was about 8 cms. tength i.e. 3 inches. There was sharp cutting edge srt one slde of the metallte part. Jt shows that the appeltant has inflteted eight injuries on the person of the injured, but no intemal organ v^s atfeetect. Exceptone injury all other injuries were grievous Sn nature. Most of the injuries wa-e in the size of 0.5 cms. x 0.5 cms. which were simple (n nature. lO.Taking into conskleration, the injuries sustatned by the injured and the weapon ofoffence asalsothe jailsentence suff^ed bythe appellant, the period already undergone by him would be sufficient to met the ends of justjce. 11-The appeal fs partly allowed and conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is maintained. however, instead ©fR.l. for seven years the appellant Is sentenced to undergo R.l. for 3 years 8 months 4 days (the period already unctergone). The ^pellant is in custody, heshall be set at liberty forthwlth, if Rot required in any other case. Soma Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge