Makhan Lal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1096 of 2002

1. Makhanlal son of Baliram Dewangan aged about 20 years, resident of village B. Jamgaon, PS Balod, Tehsil Balod, District Durg, CG ---- Appellant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Jamul, District Durg, CG ---- Respondent For Appellant - Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondent - Shri Ravindra Agrawal, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Judgment on Board 08.09.2018 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.09.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 79/2002 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 324 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, plus default stipulations. 2.

Facts of the case in brief are that on 30.10.2001 while the victim namely Gurmit Singh (PW-2) was returning to his house by car, he was stopped and assaulted by the accused/appellant with the help of knife. FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged on the same day by the victim himself and based on which the offence under Section 384 IPC was registered against the accused/appellant. The Court below framed the charge against the accused/appellant under Sections 394 and 398 IPC.

3.

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 07 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4.

After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above in paragraph No.1 of this judgment.

5.

Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the Court below has erred in law in convicting the accused/appellant under Section 324 IPC. He submits that as the accused/appellant has already remained in jail for 08 days, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction part of the judgment impugned.

6.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the Court below convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as described above are strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same.

7.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.

8.

Gurumit Singh (PW-2) - the victim has stated that on the date of incident when he was returning home from his factory, accused/appellant who was working as Guard in Pioneer Security Services, came there on a bicycle, asked him to stop, diverted his

attention and inflicted knife injuries on his chin palm and also demanded money kept with him. In cross-examination also, this witness remained firm to what he stated in the examination-in-chief. Kishore Kumar (PW-3) - the eyewitness to the incident has stated that on the date of incident when he was returning home, he saw some scuffle between the accused/appellant and PW-2, and that when he reached near the vehicle of PW-2, the accused/appellant ran away and at that time blood was oozing from the chin and right palm of PW-2. According to this witness, the victim also told him as to the act of accused/appellant where he demanded money and assaulted with knife.

Jivendra Kumar (PW-4) has also stated that on hearing the screams of PW-2 he went near his vehicle and saw the accused/appellant running away from the spot, and that on being asked, PW-2 told him to have been assaulted by the accused/appellant with knife. Shivraj Shukla (PW-5) has stated that on the date of incident the accused/appellant had telephonically informed him about the assault made by him to the accused, and also asked him to destroy the record to get rid of the police action. Deepchand Singh (PW-6) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the case of the prosecution. Dr. Ashok Kumar Soni (PW-7) is the witness who medically examined the injured (PW-2) and gave his report Ex.P-6 stating that he noticed incised wound chin and palm with some sharp and hard object. 9.

Having heard counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence of the witnesses in particular that of PW-3 to PW-5 who saw the accused/appellant running away after inflicting injuries to the victim, it is apparent that on the date of incident when the injured (PW2) was returning from his factory, the accused/appellant stopped his

car, diverted his attention and caused injuries to him with the help of knife. The doctor (PW-7) who medically examined him has stated in his report Ex. P-6 that he noticed incised wounds on the chin and palm of the injured which were inflicted with some sharp and hard object. Thus the findings recorded by the Court below are based on the evidence of the witnesses including the victim and the doctor who medically examined him and therefore, no illegality or infirmity in the same appears to be there warranting interference of by this Court. 10.

Appeal thus being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such. Accused/appellant is reported to be on bail and therefore let him be arrested and sent to jail to serve out remainder of the sentence.

Sd/- (Pritinker Diwaker) Judge Jyotishi