Partly allowed

Ballu @ Mahesh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Sept 2009CRA/87/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for attempted murder, insult, and obscene acts, the single judge bench reviewed the imposed sentence. While maintaining the conviction, the court reduced the term of imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C. from seven years to five years due to peculiar circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of R.I. for seven years under Section 307 I.P.C. reduced to five years; conviction maintained.

Ballu @ Mahesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2009)

¶1

wO %\ O‘w

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2007

¶4

¶5

APPELLANT: BaHu @ Mahesh, S/o Fagnu (In^Jail) Chandrakar, aged 27 years, R/o Village Gorkapar, P.S. Gundard'ehi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) r Now residing at near Shiv Mandir, Murram Khadan, Kohka, Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONT:DEN The State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Supela, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) {Criminal^{appealunderSectIOn374} (2)^{oftheCodeofCrlmmal} Procedure 1973}

¶6

Present:

¶7

Mr. Vinod Tekam, counsel for the appellant.

¶8

Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.

¶9

Sinqle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶11

(1-9—2009)

¶12

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction & order^of sentence dated 31-10-2006 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Durg in Sessions Trial No.146/2005, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty for commission of offence under Sections 307, 506B & 294 of the I.P.C., sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years &’ pay fine of Rs.1,000/—, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months; to undergo R.I.^for two years^& pay^{fineofRs.500/—,} in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month and to undergo R.I. for one month & pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo^R.I.forten i

¶13

days, respeo’tively.

¶14

Judgment of conviction & order of sentence is challenged on the ground that without any evidence of dangerous & grievous injury, learned Court below has convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality.

¶15

¶16

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23—3—2005 at about 6 a.m. Jubeda Begum (PW-3) was fetching^waterfrom public^tap,the accused went near the public tap and used^{filthylanguageonJubeda} Begum and caused stab wound over her abdomen^& buttock. Jubeda Begum was immediately shifted to Police Station Supela where she lodged F.1.R. vide Ex.P-8 and she was sent for^{medicalexamination.} She was examined by Dr.'R.K. Damle (PW—1)^videEx.P-1. One stab wound was found over her abdomen. Blood was coming from the injury and depth of the injury was^not possible^tomeasure. She was admitted in the hospital vide OPD ticket Ex.P—Z and bed head ticket Ex.P-3. Surgery was conducted on the same day. Huge amount of blood was found inside the abdomen. Six cut injuries over small intestine & three cut injuries over membrane of^{intestinewerefound.} The doctor opined that if immediate treatment would not have been given to the patient she would have died. One knife has been recovered from the accused vide Ex.P-12. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P—ll. Blood stained clothes were sent for chemical^analysis and presence^{ofbloodwasconfirmed} vide Ex.P-18. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class,^{Durg,whointurn,committedthecase} to the Court of Sessions, Durg, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the^case on^{transferfortrial.}

¶17

4 . In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution ha s examined as many as 11 witnesses. Examination of the accused was conducted under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded^{innocence&false} implication. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused^the judgment impugned and record of the Court below.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the light of the evidence of Dr. R.K. Damle (PW—1) & complainant Jubeda Begum (PW—3), he is not disputing the conviction of the appellant, but h e want to argue on the question of sentence.

¶20

. Otherwise also, the injuries sustained by the complainant, nature of the injuries and complicity of the appellant in the crime in question are established by the evidence of Jubeda Begum (PW~3), Dr. R.K. Damle (PW—1), Dr. Yogesh Chandra Maruwal (PW-2), Dr. M.K. Dwivedi (PW-4), Riyaz Ahmed (PW-6) & Asgar Ali (PW—9)^whichare sufficient to prove the fact that at the time of incident, the

¶21

' complainant was fetching water from the public tap, at that time, the appellant came and assaulted her with knife and six cut injuries over small intestine, three cut injuries over membrane of intestine & stab wound over abdomen were found. Nature of injuries was grievous and dangerous to life. Conviction of the appellant is based on clinching and credible evidence sustainable under the law.

¶22

. As regards the question of sentences imposed upon the appellant, t he appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years & pay^fine of Rs.1,000/~ under Section 307 of the I.P.C.; to undergo R.I. for two years & pay fine of Rs.500/under Section 506B of the I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for one month & pay fine of Rs.200/—, in default of payment Of fine to further undergo R.I. for ten days under Section 294 of the I.P.C. Age of the accused on the. date o f commission of the offence was 27 years. V. Single stab wound was found over the body of the complainant. The prosecution has not adduced evidence to show the cause of causing such injury or any

¶23

enmity. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, sentences imosedp upon the appellant require reconsideration.

¶24

. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Sections 307, 506B & 294 of the I.P.C. is maintained. Sentence of R.I. for seven years^& fine of Rs.1,000/— imposed upon the appellant under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is reduced to R.I. for five years & fine of Rs.1,000/—. Rest of the sentecesn under‘Sections 506B & 294 of the I.P.C. are maintained.

¶25

Sd/— T.P. SHARMA Judge

¶26

. .

Ballu @ Mahesh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ballu @ Mahesh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Lal Saura Vs Gen. Manager,Mpstate Road Tr and Others

Govind and Ors. Vs Prafulla Acharya and Ors.

Sitaram Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Bola Bai @ Shyam Bai Vs Dularam and Ors.

Motilal Dewangan and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Smt.Sadh Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh