Manjhala @ Laxmi Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.05.2005 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Session Judge (FTC), Janjgir in Session Trial No.72/2005, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with default stipulations.

¶17

2

¶18

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.11.2004 at about 16 hours, the appellant abused and threatened the complainant and assaulted him by axe, as a result of which he sustained injuries, thereafter the matter was reported to the concerned police station by the complainant, upon which an offence was registered against the appellant under Sections 294, 506-B and 307 of IPC and the appellant was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. PW-3 Narottam is the eye witness, but his statement suffers from various omissions and contradictions. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider the same before convicting the appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Alternatively, She submits that the incident took place in the year 2004 and at that time, the appellant was young boy, aged about 22-23 years and this appeal is pending since 2005 and now the appellant is a middle aged person and he has remained in jail for about 2 months, therefore, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶20

Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely

¶21

3

¶22

appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶24

It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506-B and 307 of IPC against the appellant and the learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence acquitted the appellant from the offence under Sections 294, 506-B and 307 of IPC and convicted him under Section 325 of IPC, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

¶25

The complainant Dhanesh Patel (PW-4) stated that on the date of incident, the accused assaulted him by axe and he sustained injuries on his head, back and leg, thereafter he lodged FIR (ExP/5) and he admitted his signatures on A to A part. Dr. S. N. jangde (PW-1) examined the complainant on 15.11.2004 and found 9 injuries on his body and advised for x-ray and gave his report vide Ex-P/1. Dr. Sanjay Kumar (PW-9) stated that the complainant was admitted in CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur from 16.11.2004 to 23.11.2004 and he was discharged on 24.11.2004 and the discharge ticket is Ex-P/8. During treatment, he found fracture in complainant’s leg and gave his report vide Ex-P/9.

¶26

4

¶27

The eye witness Narottam Kashyap (PW-3) has not supported the prosecution case, but it is clear from the statement of the complainant Dhanesh Patel that he clearly stated against the appellant and both the doctors found injuries on his leg, back and head. The learned Trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant under Sections 294, 506-B & 307 of IPC and looking to the medical report, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 325 of IPC. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on the proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, as such this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, as such the conviction of the appellant under Section 325 of IPC is hereby maintained.

¶28

As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2004, the appeal is pending since 2005, the appellant has remained in jail for about 2 months and presently he is a middle aged person, therefore, ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶29

The appeal is partly allowed.

¶30

The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if he is not

¶31

5

¶32

required to be detained in any other offence.

¶33

The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶34

Sd/Rajani Dubey Judge

¶35

Nirala

Manjhala @ Laxmi Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjhala @ Laxmi Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Onkar Prasad Mishra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Prashad Rajwade Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Darasi Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satinder Kohli Vs Rathore Medical Stores

Nirupa Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Shiromani Vs State of Chhattisgarh