The court affirmed the conviction under Section 326 IPC while upholding the trial court's discretion on sentencing.

Order on Board

11/06 /202 5

1. Though, today the present appeal has been listed for hearing on I.A. No.01 of 2023, which is an application for condonation of dalay in filing of instant appeal, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is heard finally.

2. Accordingly, I.A. No.01 of 2023 stands disposed of.

3. This appeal is preferred against the findings and judgment of impugned judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed by learned 6^th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 32/2020, whereby the respondent/accused is held guilty RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him for a rigorous imprisonment of 03 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for further 03 months, whereas, the respondent/accused was acquitted from the charges of punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code read with section 25 & 27 of Arms Act 1959.

4. The prosecution's story in nutshell is that the accused and victim of this matter are husband & wife. When victim Prerna Majumdar coming back from her work from school in evening, accused stopped her and assaulted her with a sharp-edged weapon. In this course of attach, victim tried to save herself from her left hand but by blow of said weapon, her left hand was completely amputed from palm. The accused run away from the spot. On report, PS Supela has registered offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959 against accused under crime number 1106/2019. After completion of investigation, the concerning police has filed charge-sheet against accused before committing court.

5. On 09/09/2021, charge u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959 has been framed against accused and after his denial, trial begins. On 23/12/2022, after completion of prosecution's evidence, examination of accused under Section 313 of CrPC has been conducted and his explanations have been recorded in his own words. The accused examined himself as a witness and also called another witness in his defence.

6. Learned trial Court, after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the accused/respondent for offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and acquitted from the charges of under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959.

7. Learned State counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment, findings, and the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court are neither proper nor legally sustainable and, therefore, are liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the cogent material and evidence available on record and erroneously passed the order of acquittal.

8. He further contends that the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the respondent from the charges, despite the clear and categorical statement of the victim wherein she stated that, on the date of the incident, the accused inflicted a deadly assault upon her with an intention to commit her murder. The victim’s statement is corroborated by PW-2 Rajkumar Meshram (the complainant) in his deposition. Furthermore, the police recorded the memorandum statement of the accused and recovered the weapon of offence (Banda) from his possession, wherein the accused admitted to having assaulted the victim with the said weapon. According to the medical evidence particularly the MLC report seized from Dr. Suman Rao (PW-10) the victim sustained bleeding injuries on both hands, and she stated that her husband inflicted the said injuries.

9. The learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent of the