Back
CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
CHANDRA BHUSHAN BAJPAI, J.
Girjashanker Yadav – Appellant
Vs.
State of Chattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1009 of 2000
Decided On : 7.8.2014
Indian Penal Code - Section 307 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Arms Act - Section 3 - judgment of conviction – injury – First Information Report - In the report word canwd is there, whereas the country-made pistol is seized, I do not see it a material variation since on account of fear and other changing conditions, only the barrel might have been seen and without seeing length of barrel a person may depose it as canwd instead of country-made pistol, but since both are firearm, there was no previous enmity, there is instantaneous report, many independent witnesses caught hold the appellant, they saw the victim injured, only the word canwd does not effect the case adversely – Held, It is argued that non-examination of Bharti and Rajesh Pandey make the prosecution- s case suspicious. For proving the present case, there was no necessity to examine Bharti as required under Section 5 of the Evidence Act that evidence may be given on fact in issue and relevant facts. The issue before the trial Court was whether the appellant hit gunshot fire to the victim with an intention or knowledge to take his life and whether the appellant was having any licence to carry such arm. Other undergoing facts are not relevant facts and also they were not questioned in the issue. I hold that non-examination of Bharti does not effect the case adversely. So far as non-examination of Rajesh Pandey is concerned, he is witness of the part that he took the injured/victim upto to Police Station Dharsiwa. Again, this is not a material or substantive fact, this being corroborative fact, I am of the view that this does not affect the case of the prosecution otherwise - In the present case, the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is credible and clinching. There was no reason for false implication, even there was no time to conceal any real assailant and to falsely implicate the appellant. The appellant also failed to offer explanation as to how he was found at the place of incident and as to how at his instance the country-made pistol and fired cartridge was recovered in a hidden condition. In absence of any explanation, I hold that this is an additional circumstance against the appellant. I also hold that the chain of circumstances are complete and acceptable, there are no reason to disbelieve the statement of injured witness. Minor discrepancies and variations in the statement of witnesses are natural, they do not lead the entire case towards any suspicion - In view of the aforesaid factual position and the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court convicting the accused/appellant as described above are fully concordant with the evidence of the witnesses and no interference therewith is warranted, that being so, the judgment impugned is hereby affirmed and the appeal being without any substance is hereby dismissed - Appeal dismissed
CHANDRA BHUSHAN BAJPAI, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06-04-2000 passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, M.P. (now C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 403 of 1999 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the IPC) and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentencinig him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and three years in both the counts and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (for offence under Section 307 of the IPC), in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months additional R.I. with a direction to run the both sentences concurrently.
2. In the present case name of injured and victim is Goutam Chandravanshi (PW-3) aged about 25 years. It is alleged that on 24-07-1999 at about 6:00 p.m. near Baint Plywood factory at Siltara, Police Station Dharsiwa, accused/appellant assaulted Gautam Chandravansi with a country-made pistol attempting for taking his life and also the appellant was in illegal position without any valid license as required under Section 3 of the Arms Act injured him. On 24-07-1999 at about 7:30 p.m., the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged vide Ex.-P/6 by Gautam Chandravanshi which was registered as Crime No. 105/99 under Section 307 of the IPC against the appellant in which the lodger of FIR stated that about one month before his marriage was solemnized with Bharti Parghaniya. Before his marriage, the appellant came to him and told that he is in love with Bharti Parghaniya, do not marry her, the injured/victim (Gautam Chandravanshi) had not taken care thereof and asked him to leave him. On the date of incident, at about 6:00 p.m. when Gautam Chandranvansi was returning to his Village Murethi after his job near Baint Plywood Factory, Siltara, the appellant met him and told him that he warned him not to marry with Bharti, even then he married to Bharti, now he would kill him. Thereafter, he opened a fire by a firearm and attempted for taking his life, the palettes (smithereens) of the cartridge hit his abdomen. Gautam Chandranvansi shouted, thereafter, Dhanesh Yadav (PW-15), Iqbal (PW-14), Yogendra Solanki (PW-5) and others reached the spot on account of fire and his call. The appellant ran from the spot, with the help of other villagers and two R.P.F. official the appellant was caught hold at village Sankara. Thereafter, Gautam Chandranvanshi along with Rajesh Pandey reached Police Station Dharsiwa and lodged the FIR which was registered. After the registration of the FIR, the victim was medically examined by Dr. S. B. Mangulker vide MLC report Ex.-P/SA. The doctor noticed in total 54 injuries including many small punctured wounds and many small abrasions, blood was oozing from the injuries at the outer wall of the abdomen, he has not noticed any injury in the internal part of the abdomen, multiple small iron-balls (smithereens, NJSZ) inserted in the wounds, the patient had removed some of them by his own hands and carried with him. The doctor opined that the injuries were fresh and caused by gunshot fire. The patient was referred for sonography and X-ray for further treatment and management.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 341, 307 of the IPC and 25, 27 of the Arms Act before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, who, in turn, committed the case to Court of Sessions, Raipur, the learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer and conducted the trial. The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of the IPC and 25 of the Arms Act by the trial Judge on 12-11-1999.
4. In order to prove the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecutions case and pleaded innocence and f
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
