Manharan vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dated 30.08.2002 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 488/2001, wherein the said court convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on fateful day on 07.07.2001, due to property dispute Police Station- Kasdol directed the appellants and the victims to appear with records of the property. The victim Rajesh and his brother Santosh had also gone to the Police Station and while returning to Village- Katagi, appellant No. 1-Manaharan was holding Tangiya and his brothers i.e. appellant No. 2- Chhatalal & appellant No. 3-Dinesh were abusing in front of Rajesh's house. When the victim Rajesh had made an attempt to stop them then appellant No. 1 assaulted Rajesh by Axe on his head which caused injury on the right side of his head due to which he fell down and became unconscious. After seeing the incident he came out from the house then appellants with intention to kill entered into the house and Manharan had thrown Axe upon him which caused injury on his leg. Appellant No. 3- Dinesh assaulted Santosh with Gaity, which caused injury in waist. Shiv Shankar had thrown Rapli causing injury on the right shoulder. They were chasing him and shouting that they will kill him as he alsways threatened and lodged reports in police station. Victim No.1- Rajesh was sent to Lavan hospital for treatment and Dehati Nalsi (Annexure P/1) was made and on the basis of the same, Crime No. 113/2001 was registered for commission of offence under Section 307/34 of IPC and investigation was initiated. On the basis of memorandum statement of appellants namely Dinesh, Chhatlal & Manharan, the weapons used in the crime were recovered. After completing all the formalities, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazar, who has committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, which was subsequently transferred to Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur for trying the offence under Section 307 of IPC.

The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the appellants, has examined witnesses namely Mangluram (PW-1), Rajesh (PW-2), K.L. Banjare (PW-3), Premdas (PW-4), Neelmani (PW-5), Santosh (PW-6), Ramratan (PW-7), Ramkumar (PW-8), Lursai (PW-9), P.R. Yadav (PW-10) & Netram Verma (PW-11) & exhibited documents namely Dehati Nalsi (Ex. P/1), medical report of Rajesh (Ex. P/2), application for medical examination of injured Rajesh (Ex. P/2A), medical report of Santosh (Ex. P/3), application for medical examination of injured Santosh (Ex. P/3A), seizure memo (Ex. P/4), X-ray of Santosh (Ex. P/5), memorandum statement of appellants (Ex. P/6 & P/8), seizure memo (Ex. P/7, P/9 & P/10), Najri Naksha (Ex. P/11), seizure memo (Ex. P/12 & P/13), memorandum statement of Manaharan (Ex. P/14), Medical query (Ex. P/15), Arrest memo (Ex. P/16 & P/17), memo for forensic examination of seized material (Ex. P/18), receipt (Ex. P/19), Forensic report (Ex. P/20) & forwarding memo of the report(Ex. P/21). The accused were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein they have denied the charges levelled against them.

Rajesh (PW-2) has stated that Manharan assaulted him by axe on his head and caused bleeding and doctor has stitched upon him and thereafter, Chhatlal, Dinesh, Manaharan entered into his house. He has also stated that Manharan, Dinesh & Chhatalal were in possession of Tangiya, Gaiti & Rod respectively. This witness was cross-examined by the accused and nothing was rebutted with regard to assault made by Manharan. On the contrary, in the cross-examination, he has stated that he has informed police about assault mad by the appellants and thereafter they entered into the house, but he is not aware how it has not been mentioned in Ex. D/1. In the report, he has stated that his brother was chased by the appellants, it has not been mentioned in Ex. D/1 for which he could not give any explanation. He has also denied about falsely implication of the appellants.

The prosecution to prove injuries examined Dr. K.L. Banjare (PW-3), who has given the medical report. As per his report, the injuries sustained by Rajesh are as under:-

(i) Incised wound 4x1.5x1 inch on right parietal region.

(ii) Incised wound 1x0.5x1/4 inch on occipital region.

(iii) Incised wound 0.5x0.5x0.5 inch on left parietal region.

The injuries sustained by Santosh are as under:-

(i) Swelling 7x8 inch on right shoulder.

(ii) Incised wound 1x1 inch on upper side of right shoulder.

(iii) 5 injuries 1.5x1 inch on right shoulder and neck.

(iv) Incised wound 0.5x1x1 inch on middle of left jaw.

(v) Incised wound 1x1/4x1/4 inch on paw of right leg.

The doctor had opined that the injuries sustained by Rajesh were simple in nature and it can be cured within 10 days if there is no other complication in the injuries. He has also given opinion that the injuries No. 1 to 4 sustained by Santosh can be caused by blunt weapon and injury No. 5 can be caused by edged weapon. He has also stated that no abnormality was found in X-ray which was done by Dr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma and he is aware about signature of Dr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma who has put signature. He has also given opinion about blood stains on the weapon seized in the case. He has also stated that there are blood stains on the seized weapon i.e. Tangiya & Rapli, which were sent for forensic analysis.

Santosh (PW-6) examined before the trial Court wherein he has stated that the appellants are sons of his uncle and due to some property, the dispute arose and at about 7.00 a.m. and in this regard, he and his brother went to police station for lodging report. When they were taking meals, the appellants assaulted his brother by Tangiya and his brother fell down and when he has come from his house then Manaharan, Chhataram and Dinesh entered into his house, beaten him and to escape from them, started running then Manharan had thrown Axe on him which attacked in his leg and Dinesh assaulted him with Gaity causing injury on his waist. He has stated that while chasing him, the appellants were threatening stating that they will kill him. This witness was extensively cross-examined by the appellants, but nothing was rebutted.

The prosecution has also examined Ramratan (PW-7) who is a seizure witness and he was declared hostile, therefore, the prosecution has cross-examined him. He has stated that the prosecution has seized nothing before him.

The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material placed on record, has exonerated the appellants under Section 307 of IPC and convicted them under Section 324/34 of IPC vide impugned judgment of conviction.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and presence of the applicants at the place of occurrence is not proved and there are contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, which are fatal for the prosecution and the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court suffers from illegality and irregularity which warrants interference by this Court.

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The victims have clearly deposed before the trial Court how they have been assaulted by the appellants. There was no effective cross-examination with regard to the assault made by the appellants, therefore, the finding arrived at by the trial Court convicting the appellants for commission of offence under Section 324/34 of IPC, is illegal, justify and does not warrant any interference by this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.

From perusal of the evidence, it is proved that all the appellants Manharan, Dinesh & Chhatalal were present at the place of occurrence, who were in possession of Tangiya, Gaiti & Rod respectively who caused injuries to the victims namely Santosh and Rajesh. The defence taken by the appellants does not inspire confidence as no cogent evidence has been brought on record. It is not disputed that there are minor contradictions with respect to the time of the occurrence or injuries attributed on hand or foot but the constant narrative of the witnesses is that the appellants were present at the place of occurrence armed with Tangiya, Gaiti & Rod and they caused injuries to the victims. It is well settled legal position that the testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omissions as observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & another Vs. State of Maharashtrar (2008) 8 SCC 457. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while considering the issue of contradictions in the testimony, while appreciating the evidence in a criminal trial, held that only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. The relevant portion of para 42 of the judgment reads as under:-

“42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person. The omissions in the earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the present case, the same would not cause any dent in the testimony of PW 2. Even if there is contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point, that is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness.”

From evidence, it is clear that all the injuries sustained by the victims were caused by the weapon and as per the forensic examination of the weapon, there was human blood as evident from FSL report, which clearly establishes that all the appellants were present at the place of occurrence and have used weapons for causing hurt to the victims on account of some property dispute between the appellants and the victims.

The word “hurt” simply means performing an act which leads to physical pain, injury or any disease to a person. At times, hurt may be caused voluntarily or it can be caused by using dangerous weapons or mean. A person will be liable to have caused hurt voluntarily through dangerous weapons as defined in Section 324 of IPC, which reads as under:-

“324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

To establish an offence under Section 324 of IPC, the presence of following ingredients is a must, which are as follows:-

Voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused, and

Such hurt was caused:

a. By any instrument used for shooting, cutting or stabbing, or any other instrument likely to cause death, or b. By fire or other heated instruments, or

c. By poison or other corrosive substance, or d. By any explosive substance, or

e. By a substance that is dangerous for the human body to swallow, inhale, or receive through blood, or f. By an animal.

When a person commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and means under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of three years, or with fine.

Section 324 of IPC has come up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh Vs. The State of Bihar Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2020 (Decided on 22.04.2022), wherein it has been held at paragraphs 22 & 23 as under:-

“22. In the case at hand, it is evident from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the two appellants have caused hurt on the body of the informant, PW-8 by using firearm on account of an altercation which took place between the appellants and the informant PW-8. It also stands corroborated from the evidence of the prosecution witness that there existed previous enmity between the parties due to a land dispute and the same can be perceived from their acts. Thus, the charge of Section 324 IPC stands established against the two appellants. Once the charge against the appellants under Section 324 IPC of voluntarily causing injuries by firearm, which is a dangerous weapon stands established, they cannot escape the punishment for using arms prescribed by Section 27 of the Arms Act.

From the analysis of the above facts and circumstances, the High Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeals lack merits and are accordingly dismissed.”

From evidence brought on record by the prosecution, it is quite vivid that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the finding recorded by the trial Court with regard to the conviction of the appellants under Section 324/34, does not suffer from perversity or illegality, which warrants from any interference by this Court.

Now this Court has to examine whether the imposition of sentence as awarded by the trial Court can be interfered by this Court at this passage of time as the offence occurred on 07.07.2001 and 21 years have already been lapsed. At the time of offence, the appellants were aged about 28, 35 & 32 years and at present, they must be 49, 56 & 53 years.

This Court vide order dated 07.10.2002 granted bail to the appellants. As the appellants were not appearing before the trial Court, therefore, this Court vide its order dated 05.03.2021 issued non-bailable warrant to the appellants and in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, they were produced before this Court on 10.05.2021 and this Court vide its order dated 12.05.2021 granted bail to the appellants. The records of the case would demonstrate that the appellants were arrested on 04.05.2021 and they were directed to be produced before the trial Court on 05.05.2021 and thereafter this Court has granted bail on 12.05.2021. Thus, the applicants remained in jail for 7 days.

Section 324 of IPC pre-supposes an act of voluntarily causing hurt by an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, the imprisonment for this offence is the maximum sentence of three years or a fine or both. The intent of the Legislature can be gathered from the fact that this offence prescribes an imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine. Keeping in view the fact that the offence relates to the year 2001 i.e. more than 22 years old and much time and water having flown since that period; they are being the first time offenders and tender age at the time of the offence, it is a fit case where this Court can reduce the sentence of three years to three months maintaining the conviction under Section 324/34 of IPC and while enhancing the fine amount of Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 3000/-. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the accused/ appellants i.e. 3 years is reduced to the period of 3 months, fine amount 1000/- each is enhanced to Rs. 3000/- each. The sentence i.e. 3 months awarded to the appellants shall be adjusted to the period which they have undergone and the enhanced amount of Rs. 3000/- shall also be adjusted to the fine amount which they already deposited. The enhanced amount of fine will be paid to the victims as compensation. The fine amount shall be deposited before the trial Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this and in default of non-depositing of fine, all the appellants shall be sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

So far as conviction is concerned, the appeal is dismissed, but so far as sentenced is concerned, it is allowed in part.