The High Court of Chhattisgarh in an appeal altered the conviction from Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC as the injury was not fatal but grievous, and set the sentence to time already served.
Conviction altered under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to period already undergone; appellant released forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 954 of 2002
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent/State: Ms. Subha Shrivastava, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment On Board
05/10/2021
This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.08.2002 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir, Sessions Division Bilaspur (C.G.), in S.T. No.196/99 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 307 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo R.I. for two months.
2
selling grass, on which he gave Rs.10/- to the appellant. On the very day at about 9.00 pm, injured Harendra Prasad went to the house of appellant to get his money back. He asked the appellant to return the money, then the appellant, who seemed to be in drunken position, came out of his house hurling abuses and inflicted injury over his abdomen by iron spatula saying him to go back, else he will kill him, as a result of which injured Harendra Prasad fell down. Thereafter, injured was first taken to Police Station, Sheorinarayan, and FIR (Ex.P/6) was registered against the appellant, from where he was taken to Civil Dispensary, Sheorinarayan, where Dr. R.S. Prabhakar (PW/6) examined injured Harendra Prasad and gave his report Ex.P/5 noticing following injuries:-
The Doctor has opined that injury was caused by sharp pointing object and injured was referred to Surgical Specialist, District Hospital, Bilaspur, for determining the nature of injury.
3
the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. Two defence witnesses were also examined in the case.
(i) Admittedly, present is a case of single injury caused by the appellant on the abdomen of the injured which was not fatal to life and, therefore, the case of the appellant would fall within the ambit of Section 326 of IPC and not under Section 307 IPC as has been done by the Court below.
(ii) It has been argued that the appellant has already remained in jail for about six months and, therefore, after converting his sentence into Section 326 of IPC, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
4
5
injured Harendra Prasad (PW/3) who told that the appellant has caused injury to him. Dr. R.S. Prabhakar (PW/6) examined the injured (PW/3) and gave his report vide Ex.P/5. D.P. Chandra (PW/7) is the Investigating OfÏcer who had duly supported the prosecution case. Dr. D.R. Jitpure (PW/8) is the Medical OfÏcer, who was posted at District Hospital, Bilaspur. He had taken x-ray of injured (PW/3) vide Ex.P/8. Dr. D.R. Patle (PW/9) is Surgical Specialist, who was posted at District Hospital, Bilaspur. He has stated that he was asked for opinion by the police regarding the nature of injury of injured/victim. He gave his report vide Ex.P/9 opining that the injury sustained by the injured/victim (PW/3) was grievous in nature. He has stated that the wound in the abdomen, though not inflicted on the intestines, but the foreskin in the abdomen was cut, therefore, he had suggested it to be an injury of a grievous in nature.
6
Dispensary, Sheorinarayan, and then to District Hospital, Bilaspur. Injured Harendra Prasad (PW/3) has categorically stated that it is the appellant who caused injury to him over his abdomen by iron spatula. Evidence of this witness gets corroboration from the promptly lodged FIR (Ex.P/6) naming the appellant to be the perpetrator of crime and also medical evidence MLC (Ex.P/5), X-ray report (Ex.P/8) and report (Ex.P/9) of Surgical Specialist (PW/9) in which injury on abdomen of the injured was noticed and according to Dr. R.S. Prabhakar (PW/6), who first examined the injured (PW/3), the same was caused by sharp object. In these circumstances, the complicity of accused/appellant in crime in question stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.
7
abdomen, though not inflicted on the intestines, but the foreskin in the abdomen was cut, therefore, he had suggested it to be an injury of a grievous in nature. This witness has not stated in his evidence that the injury sustained by the injured was fatal to life. That apart, the prosecution has not brought any such material in this regard which could establish the fact that the injury sustained by the injured/victim was fatal to life.
8
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) Judge
pekde
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the act of the appellant making him liable to be convicted under Section 307 IPC rather than Section 326 IPC.
Whether the appellant should be sentenced to the period already undergone in jail given the time elapsed since the incident.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Faggu
State of Chhattisgarh
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
