Santosh Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Offence u/S.,RI for,Fine Rs.,"RI in default of payment

of fine

307, IPC",8 Years,"5,000/-",5 Months

construction. D.W. 1 Smt. Sita Sahu says in para 1 that she had inimical relation with appellant on account of land dispute. In these circumstances and,,,

looking to Ex. D-1, this Court finds that prior to alleged incident, enmity was present between the appellant and Smt. Sita Sahu.",,,

Previous enmity is a double edged weapon. It can be used for the attack and also for the defence.,,,

There is no such evidence on record on strength of which it can be said that P.W. 1 Mohd. Umar and P.W. 2 Nazma had made aforesaid,,,

statement of para 1 of their statements only on account of alleged animosity present between complainant and appellant, knowing that nothing had",,,

happened.,,,

No such material omissions and contradictions have been dealt on behalf of appellant during the cross-examination of P.W. 1 Mohd. Umar and,,,

P.W. 2 Nazma which may adversely affect the aforesaid testimony of para 1 of the statements of P.W. 1 Mohd. Umar and P.W. 2 Nazma.,,,

In alleged Dehati Nalishi Ex. P-1 it has been mentioned that Nazma had seen that appellant was causing the injury on the head of complainant by,,,

Spade.,,,

Ex. P-1 has been lodged on very day promptly and without delay.,,,

There is no such evidence on record on strength of which it can be said that Ex. P-1 is concocted, lodged as an afterthought, with intention to",,,

falsely implicate appellant in alleged crime.,,,

P.W. 5 Dr. Santosh Bhandare says in para 3 during his cross- examination that aforesaid injuries of the complainant could not have caused by,,,

vehicle accident.,,,

The appellant had not examined the father of D.W. 1 Smt. Sita Sahu allegedly with whom he was at Khamtarai at the time of alleged incident.,,,

Moreover, he has also not examined any person of Khamtarai who may say that allegedly the appellant was present there at the time of alleged",,,

incident. Moreover, there is no such evidence on record on strength of which it can be said that it was impossible for the appellant to reach on the spot",,,

at the time of alleged incident.,,,

If above mentioned facts and circumstances are minutely considered then aforesaid animosity may be a motive for appellant to commit the,,,

offence.,,,

Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case this Court finds that aforesaid statements of para 1 of P.W. 1 Mohd. Umar,",,,

P.W. 2 Nazma are simple, natural and normal. Thus this Court believes on them and disbelieves aforesaid statement of para 1 of D.W. 1 Smt. Sita",,,

Sahu.,,,

After appreciation of the evidence discussed here before, on the strength of aforesaid statements of para 1 of P.W. 1 Mohd. Umar, P.W. 2",,,

Nazma, Ex. P-1, Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-10, this Court finds that prosecution has succeeded to prove that appellant had caused aforesaid injuries to P.W. 1",,,

Mohd. Umar mentioned in Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-10. His injuries were dangerous to life, if he could not have got proper treatment he would have died and",,,

the injuries caused by hard and sharp object itself speaks that blow was caused with heavy force.,,,

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Balaram Rama Patil, [1983 (2) SCC 28] observed that ""To justify a conviction under this",,,

section it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often,,,

give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances,",,,

and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the",,,

accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases",,,

in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient,,,

under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was",,,

done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the,,,

penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.""",,,

In Lachman Singh -v- State of Haryana (2006(10) SCC 524) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order to justify conviction under Section 307,",,,

it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death to be inflicted, but it is sufficient if there is present an intention coupled with some overt",,,

act in execution thereof.,,,

In Ratan Singh -v- State of M.P. [2009(12) SCC 585], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to justify a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it is not",,,

essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted, and circumstances that injury inflicted simple or minor will not rule out",,,

application of the section.,,,

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghulam Mustafa Vs State of Uttaranchal, [(2016) 15 SCC 752] held that ""to justify a conviction under Sec-307,",,,

IPC the court has to see whether the act was done with the intention to commit murder and it would depend upon facts and circumstances of the case,,,

- although nature of injuries caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to intention of accused, such intention may also be gathered from",,,

the circumstances like nature of weapon used, parts of body where injuries were caused, severity of blows given and motive, etc.""",,,

In the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kanhaiya Lal [(2019) 5 SCC 639] their Lordship of Supreme Court held that:-,,,

Accused inflicting single injury on head of deceased by axe which proved to be fatal, is sufficient to attract offence under Section 302 IPC. Mere",,,

absence of repeated injury cannot be ground to convert conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I IPC.,,,

From the evidence discussed herebefore, it is noticeable that appellant had caused aforesaid injuries on the person of P.W.1 Mohd. Umar with",,,

intention of causing death or with intention of causing injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, aforesaid",,,

judicial precedents laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra (Supra), Lachman Singh (Supra) Ratan Singh (Supra),",,,

Gulam Mustaffa (Supra), Kanhaiya Lal (Supra) are applicable against the appellant.",,,

This Court finds that no exception referred to Section 300, IPC is attracted in the case in hand.",,,

Considering the entire evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has succeeded to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge under Section",,,

307 of the IPC against the appellant. Thus, this Court holds that the appellant is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Thus,",,,

aforesaid conviction of appellant is hereby affirmed.,,,

Looking to the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that sentence awarded by trial Court is not excessive and",,,

appears to be proportionate. Thus, aforesaid sentence is also affirmed.",,,

Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.,,,

The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are canceled. He is directed to surrender immediately before the trial Court for undergoing,,,

the remaining part of the sentence, if any. The trial Court is also directed to take the appellant in custody forthwith for undergoing the remaining part",,,

of sentence, if any.",,,