The High Court affirmed the conviction of appellants under Section 307 IPC for assaulting the injured with a knife. While rejecting the plea of false implication, the High Court modified the sentence, reducing it to two years RI.
Conviction affirmed. Sentence modified to two years rigorous imprisonment.
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.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1083 of 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellants : Ms Deepali Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Ravi Solapurkar, GA and Shri Praveen Shrivastava, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board
16.09.2022
Cra 1083 and 1084 of 2022
2
Jeetu Ram was lying and upon asking, he told name of assailant as son of Budhu. Injured was taken to the hospital. Based on the report lodged by Jethu Ram, initially Dehati Nalishi was prepared, and thereafter, FIR was registered against appellants for offence as defined under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police submitted Final Report before the Court of competent jurisdiction for the aforementioned offences. Learned trial Court framed charges against appellants for offences as mentioned above. Appellants abjured their guilt and sought trial.
Cra 1083 and 1084 of 2022
3
Cra 1083 and 1084 of 2022
4
Cra 1083 and 1084 of 2022
5
came out from abdomen. Ex.P14 is document by which police referred injured to the hospital on the same day and doctor who examined injured, has found one stab wound over abdomen. PW1 Jethu Ram proved Ex.P1 Dehati Nalishi, and further, he stood with the allegation levelled in Dehati Nalishi as also information given by the injured immediately after the incident, to him, of assault committed upon injured by son of Buddhu. PW2 injured in his evidence narrated entire story prior to the time of incident that he met with appellants at liquor shop and further stated that both the appellants caught hold of him and Bhurru @ Amardas Satnami caused stab injury over his abdomen. In his evidence he stated that after receiving stab injury over his abdomen, he reached house of Mehettar Yadav, and shouted for water. Wife of Mehettar Yadav came out and gave him water, to whom also, injured told names of appellants. PW5 Ram Kali Bai, wife of Mehettar Yadav, who gave water to the injured at that relevant point of time has stated that Jeetu Ram while running, asked her for water. She also stated that at that time she found him in drunken condition, and she did not see any injury over the person of Jeetu Ram. Mannu Yadav, son of Mehettar Yadav is examined as PW12. In his evidence, he stated that after hearing voise asking for water, he came out and saw Jeetu Ram lying in front of his house. PW2 injured asked for water from him and he also stated that he was assaulted. Witness asked his mother to give water and went to call brother of injured to his house. Evidence of PW3 Narayan Singh and PW8 Nakuldas would show that injured along with appellant and others came on auto of Narayan Singh to his house and from his house all the persons dispersed to their respective residential place. It has also come in the evidence of Nakul Das that when he was going to his work from the house of Narayan Singh, Bhurru (one of the appellants), and Jeetu Ram (injured) were coming behind him.
Cra 1083 and 1084 of 2022
6
Cra 1083 and 1084 of 2022
7
Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE
padma
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants for attempting to cause grievous hurt.
Whether the impugned sentence imposed by the trial court calls for modification by this court.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhurru @ Amardas Satnami
Fooldas Satnami
State Of Chhattisgarh
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
