Back
2020 Supreme(Chh) 326
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ram Prasanna Sharma, J.
Parmeshwar Rajwade - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer - Respondent
CRA No. 974 of 2015
Decided On : 17-02-2020
Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mrs. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer, for the Respondent
The intention of the accused to cause harm, irrespective of the actual result, is crucial in determining the application of Section 307 of IPC.
Headnote:
Section 307 IPC - Conviction under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959 - [IPC 307, Arms Act 1959 25(1B)] - The court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act, 1959. The court emphasized the intention of the accused to cause harm, irrespective of the actual result, and the possession of a sharp-edged weapon without a license, leading to the application of the relevant sections.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for assaulting his wife and others with a sword, leading to injuries. The appellant appealed against the conviction, arguing that the injuries were not fatal and that the trial court overlooked contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injuries caused by the appellant were grievous in nature and that the intention to cause harm was evident. The court affirmed the conviction and the sentence, stating that it was not harsh or unreasonable.
Issues: The issues revolved around the severity of the injuries, contradictions in witness statements, and the application of Section 307 of IPC and Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act, 1959.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the intention of the accused to cause harm, irrespective of the actual result, is crucial in determining the application of Section 307 of IPC. The possession of a sharp-edged weapon without a license led to the application of Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act, 1959.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were affirmed.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29-7-2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Surguja (Ambikapur) (CG) in Sessions Trial No. 142 of 2011 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, with default stipulations. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. As per version of prosecution, marriage of victim namely Rajdhani was performed with appellant at Anuj Nagar but she was residing with her mother namely Rambai since Durga worship. Appellant is husband of victim Rajdhani. On the date of incident i.e., on 6-4-2010 at about 11.00 a.m., appellant visited the house of Rambai for taking his wife Rajdhani with him, but on refusal by Rajdhani appellant assaulted said Rajdhani by sword and also assaulted Ram Bai, Shobhnath and Reena Bai who intervened in the matter. The matter was reported and investigated. After completion of trial, the appellant was charge-sheeted and convicted as aforementioned.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit as under:
i) The trial court has failed to appreciate the statement of Dr. K.S. Toppo (PW/3),Dr. Arvind Paik (PW/13) and Dr. Rachna Arthur (PW/14). As per their version injuries were simple in nature and same was not capable to cause their death..
ii The trial court committed error in convicting the appellant under Section 307 of IPC because case does not fall within ambit of that Section.
iii) The trial Court has overlooked the material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and independent witnesses have not supported the version of prosecution, therefore, case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that the finding of the trial Court is based on proper marshalling of the evidence and the same is not liable to be interfered while invoking the jurisdiction of the appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the court below in which impugned judgment is passed.
6. In the present case, date of incident is 6-11-2010 and report was lodged on the same day by Vijay Kumar Nishad (PW/2) in Police Station Gandhinagar naming the appellant as culprit and his act of fatal assault to victim is also mentioned. From version of Rambai (PW/1), Phool Bai (PW/5), Rajdhani (PW/6), Shobhnath Rajwade (PW/7) and Reena Rajwade (PW/12), it is established that the appellant entered into the house of Rambai who is mother-in-law of the appellant and he asked his wife namely Rajdhani to leave the house of her mother and move with him and when she replied that she will move after-noon, appellant assaulted her by sword and again assaulted Rambai, Shobhnath and Reena Bai. All these witnesses have been subjected to searching cross examination, but nothing could be elicited in favour of defence. Direct evidence is supported by version of Dr. Arvind Paik (PW/13) who examined Rambai on 6-11-2010 at Mission Hospital, Ambikapur and noticed the following injuries.
i) Incised wound about 8 cm x 4 cm over right forearm and blood was oozing from muscle to bone deep.
ii) Incised wound about 7 cm x 4cm, and 5cm and 3 cm and 4cm and 3 cm over left forearm and blood was oozing from muscles.
As per version of this witness, injuries caused to Rambai were grievous in nature. Version of this witness is unrebutted during cross examination and there is nothing on record contrary to the opinion of this expert.
7. Dr. Rachna Arthur (PW/14) examined Shobhnath on 11-11- 2010 at Mission Hospital, Ambikapur and noticed the following injuries.
i) Incised wound in the size of 8''x3''x3'' over right side neck and bleeding.
ii) Incised wound in the
