Harprasad Kewat vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pritinker Diwaker, J.—This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 28-10-2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti in Sessions Trial No. 101/2009 convicting the accused/appellant u/s 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26-1-2009 at about 9.05 a.m. FIR Ex. P-1 was lodged by Horilal (PW-1) - father of injured Anjali (PW-2) alleging that on that day at about 7.30 a.m. he had gone to attend the call of nature and his daughter to the canal for cooking food for the people working there. It is alleged that after hearing the cries of his daughter when he reached the spot, he saw the accused/appellant assaulting his daughter with knife saying that in spite of his refusal why she was cooking food and that he would kill her. It is further alleged that on seeing him, the accused/appellant ran away from the spot after throwing the knife. It is alleged that on being asked the victim had told him that on account of cooking food in spite of appellant''s refusal, he assaulted her with knife with an intention to kill her. Based on this FIR, offence u/s 307, IPC was registered against the accused/appellant and after investigation challan was filed by the police on 28-2-2009 for the offences under sections 307 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act and then the Court below also framed the charges under the same sections.

In support of its case, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.

After hearing the parties, the Court below acquitted the accused/appellant of the charge u/s 25 of the Arms Act but convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above in paragraph No. 1 of this judgment.

Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that even if entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the accused/appellant cannot be convicted u/s 307 IPC as the doctor who had done CT scan has deposed that injuries sustained by the victim were not dangerous to life and that no fracture was found by him. According to him, at the most the offence alleged against the accused/appellant would fall u/s 324 IPC for which he has already remained in jail for about two months and seven days and therefore the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that by causing 11 injuries on the body of the victim it can safely be gathered that the accused/appellant was having prior intention to kill the victim. According to him, the doctor examining the victim has categorically stated that injuries sustained by the victim were grievous in nature and so also vide Ex. P-14 while answering the query it was stated by him that if the injured was not treated promptly, injuries could have been fatal. He submits that apart from the victim, her father has also supported the case of the prosecution.

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

Victim - Anjali Yadav (PW-2) has stated in her evidence that she used to cook food for the labourers working in the canal and that on the date of incident when she had gone there for the said purpose, the labourers had gone to the canal for taking bath and she was all alone there. At that time, accused/appellant along with one Dhiraj came there, made other three masons present there leave the spot and started abusing her saying why she was cooking food for others. Expressing her protest to such abuses saying that she would inform her father about the same when she was to leave the spot, accused/appellant attacked on her head with knife as a result of which she fell down but even thereafter he repeatedly assaulted her on other parts of the body as well. On hearing her cries, her father reached the spot and on seeing him the accused/appellant threw the knife and ran away. Thereafter, she was taken to hospital at Baradwar but as it was closed she was shifted to Sakti from where she was referred to CIIMS, Bilaspur. In cross-examination, she has been very firm while deposing the things as in the examination-in-chief. Horilal Yadav (PW-1) - father of the victim has stated that on the date of incident he had gone towards the pond to answer the call of nature and that after hearing the cries of his daughter when he reached the spot he saw the accused/appellant assaulting his daughter with knife and on seeing him he ran away from there by throwing the knife. According to this witness, the accused/appellant had assaulted the victim as she used to cook the food for the contractor and masons working there in the canal. Thereafter, this witness is said to have taken the victim to the hospital and then the report was lodged. In cross-examination he remained firm to what has come in the examination-in-chief. Bhola Prasad Yadav (PW-3) is the witness who is said to have seen the victim in an injured condition. Purshottam Sahu (PW-4) - the witness to seizure has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Kamal Singh Rajput (PW-5) - witness to seizure and memorandum has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Paltan Bareth (PW-6) - witness to seizure has not stated anything specific against the accused/appellant. Dr. (Smt.) C. K. Singh (PW-7) is the witness who examined the victim and gave her report Ex. P-11 stating that following 11 injuries were noticed by her:

Incised wound near forehead right side 3.5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. bone deep.

Incised wound near occipital region left side 4.0 x � x � c.m.

Incised wound near left side of face 4.5 x 0.2 x 0.2 c.m.

Incised wound over Cheek bone 1.5 x 1/5 x � c.m.

Incised wound left forearm dorsal aspect 7 c.m. above the wrist joint.

Incised wound over the left wrist joint dorsal aspect 4.5 x 1.5 x bone deep.

Incised wound 01 c.m. above injury No. 6 size 1.5 x � c.m.

Incised wound right forearm size 3.0 x 1.0 x � c.m.

Incised wound over index finger size 1.5 x � c.m.

Incised wound over index finger III phalanx � x � c.m.

Incised wound left thumb size 2.5 x 0.2 c.m. x bone deep.

This witness has opined the injury to be grievous in nature and could be caused with hard and sharp object.

Ghasiram Yadav (PW-8) - witness to seizure has been declared hostile. Dhiraj Vaishnav (PW-9) has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Shyam Kumar Rathore (PW-10) is the Patwari who prepared spot map Ex. P-18. G. P. Shrivas (PW-11) is the investigating officer who has supported the case of the prosecution. Tarachand Sahu (PW-12) has stated that on the date of incident when he was working in the field, he saw the accused/appellant standing there. According to him, the accused/appellant asked him to go away as he had to have some talk with the victim and when he moved away, Santlal and the accused/appellant again called him and requested to shift the victim to the hospital. Dr. Anil Pratap Singh (PW-13) is the radiologist who had done CT scan on the victim vide Ex. P-27. According to this witness, no fracture was found on her body. In cross-examination he has stated that the injuries sustained by the victim were not grievous in nature, they were simple in nature and no fracture was there on her body.

Evidence of victim Anjali Yadav (PW-2) and her father Horilal Yadav (PW-1) makes it clear that it was the accused/appellant who caused as many as 11 injuries to the victim. Statement of these two witnesses is duly supported by Dr. (Smt.) C. K. Singh (PW-7) who had medically examined the victim vide Ex. P-11 and stated that the injuries were grievous in nature and if they were not treated promptly, they could be fatal. Act of accused/appellant in causing as many as 11 injuries clearly shows that he was pre-determined to kill her. Statement of the radiologist regarding the injuries sustained by the victim is of no significance because he had not treated her but he had simply taken her CT scan. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Court below convicting the accused/appellant u/s 307 IPC are wholly justified and are based on due appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses. Appeal thus has no force and is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such and the judgment impugned is hereby affirmed. As the accused/appellant is already is in jail, no order regarding surrender etc. is required.