Govind Rai @APPELLANT@Hash State of Chhattisgarh

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5-1-2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Koria, Baikunthpur

(CG) in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2007 wherein the said Court convicted the appellant for the commission of offence under Section 324 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500- with default stipulations.

As per case of prosecution, in the midnight of 27-9-2006 at about 2.45 a.m., at Jilmili Colliery, Pandopara prayer of Godess Durga was going on

where the victim N.R. Holkar was sitting. At the same time appellant reached there and after using abusive language attacked him on his head by

chair as a result of which the victim fell unconscious. The matter was reported and investigated. After completion of the trial, the trial Court convicted

and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit as under:

i) The trial Court has not considered the evidence of PW/4 Kamlesh Bahadur, PW/12 B. Kumar and PW/13 D.L. Bhaskar, who have not supported

the version of prosecution.

ii) The trial Court has overlooked major contradictions and omissions in the statement of the victim as well as other prosecution witnesses, therefore,

finding of the trial Court is not sustainable.

iii) Prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the sentence part is harsh looking to the facts and circumstances of the

case. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment would submit that the finding of the trial Court is based on proper

marshaling of evidence which is not liable to be interfered while invoking jurisdiction of the appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the lower court in which impugned judgment has been passed.

To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. In the present case, date of incident is 27-9-2006 and report was lodged

on the same day at Police Station Patna by the victim in which name of the appellant is mentioned as culprit. N.R. Holkar PW/1 is victim of the case.

As per version of this witness, he was present during function organised near Godess Durga sitting place. As per version of this witness, appellant

assaulted him by chair on his head and when he tried to assault twice, he caught hold chair and people sitting nearby intervened in the matter. The

assault resulted in bleeding from the head of the victim and thereafter some people took him to hospital for medical treatment. Version of this witness

is supported by version of Awadh Kishore (PW/2), J.S. Mahapatra (PW/3) and Kamlesh Bahadur (PW/4). All these witnesses have been subjected

to searching cross examination but nothing could be elicited in favour of defence. Version of these witnesses is supported by version of Medical

Officer Dr. A.K. Sharma (PW/11) who examined the victim on 28-9-2006 and found the following injuries.

I) Lacerated wound present on left frontal region of scalp, wound is situated 6†above from left supra orbital margin, size 4â€x1/2â€x bony deepness,

margin irregular, blood stained red in colour.

ii) Bruise & swelling present on dorsal surface of left palm,at middle, size 4â€x3â€, pain and tenderness present. He opined that patient is semi

conscious, pulse 70/mt, BP 100/ 70 mm Hg plantor reflex is flexer, pupils are semi-dated, reaction to light present.

(1) Advised x-ray of skull view.

(2) Advised x ray of left palm view.

The injury is caused by hard and blunt object. Duration of wound is within 8 hours. Suspected one of head injury. Patient is referred to SECL hospital

for further x-ray and treatment.

As per version of this witness, injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. Duration of wound is within 8 hours. Injury was head injury. From the

statement of this witness, it is established that victim was in semi-conscious condition and as per version of this medical expert, injury was dangerous

to life. Version of this witness is unshaken during cross examination and there is no other medical expert's report contrary to opinion of this expert.

There is no material contradiction regarding assault. Minor contradiction which does not go to the root of the case is insignificant. If any witness has

not seen the incident that does not sufficient to discard version of victim. It is the quality and not the quality of the witnesses is to be seen. Argument

advanced on behalf of the appellant is not acceptable looking to the sterling quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution.

True it is that all witnesses have not seen the incident, but the fact remains that the witnesses have reached on the spot and saw bleeding on the

head of the victim. From the evidence of medical officer, it is clear that injuries were danger to life and therefore, the instrument in the present case

was chair which was used as a weapon of offence and it is likely to cause death, therefore, offence under Section 324 of the IPC is established. Case

of the appellant does not fall in any of the exceptions mentioned between Section 76 to 106 of the IPC and looking to the incident, it is clear that the

appellant had intention or knowledge to cause pain to the victim which is voluntary in nature.

The trial Court has elaborately discussed the entire evidence and came to conclusion that offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is proved

against the appellant. This court has no reason to record contrary finding. Conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC is hereby affirmed.

Heard on the point of sentence. Looking to the fact that injury was danger to life, the sentence of one year awarded by the trial Court cannot be

termed as harsh, disproportionate or unreasonable. Sentence part is also not liable to be interfered with by this court.

Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The

trial Court will prepare super-session warrant and issue warrant of arrest against him. After his arrest he be sent to concerned jail to serve out the

remaining part of the jail sentence. The trial Court to submit compliance report on or before 24th January, 2019.