Order on Board

29-01-2024

1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.10.2001 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Dist-Surguja, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No.283/1999 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced as under :-

2. Due to the death of co-accused/appellants- Shobhanath and Dilip Kumar, during the pendency of the appeal, their case was abated and their names have been deleted as per the court order dated

27/06/2022.

3. It has been an undisputed fact that the son of accused- Shobhanath is accused-Dilip Kumar and the appellant-Sadhram. Both the parties are relatives whose fields are adjacent to each other. Somar Sai (PW-4) is the brother of accused Shobhanath. Son of Somar Sai is Khursal (PW-1). Brother of Khursal is Devraj (PW-6) and son of Khursal is Phoolchand (PW-3). In the case in question, the accused/appellants have been convicted and punished for attempting to murder of Khursal.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15/07/1999, when the victim-Khursal (PW-1) was plowing his field for sowing paddy near the Police Station-Lakhanpur, Village-Nonera, his father Somar Sai (PW-4) also came and was fixing the broken bund. At around 11:00 a.m., the appellants/accused came and started arguing as to why they were tying the bund. Thereafter, accused-Dilip Kumar beat up Khursal (PW- 1) with an axe, appellant-Sadhram with a stick and accused-Shobnath with a spade, due to which he got bleeding and suffered injuries. On the same day, on the report lodged by Khursal (PW-1), first information report vide Ex.P-1 was registered against the appellants/accused persons and his medical examination and X-ray was conducted. His medical examination conducted by Dr. P.S. Kerketta (PW-7) submitted his report vide Ex.P-3, in which, he found three cut wounds on his head, one cut wound on his left wrist and swelling on his left shoulder.

X-ray was advised and the nature of the injury was considered grievous based on the possibility of bone fracture. After preparing spot map in earlier investigation by the police, a tangi was seized from the appellant-Sadharam vide Ex.P-8, an iron shovel was seized from accused-Dilip Kumar vide Ex.P-9 and another one iron shovel was seized from accused-Shobhanath under vide Ex.P-10. The seized weapon was medically examined and sent it to laboratory for forensic test, after which, the final report was prepared.

5. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents. FSL report not submitted. Appellant-Sadharam denied the statements of the witnesses contrary to him and in support of his defence, two witnesses have been examined and after hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that there is a lack of clear and reliable evidence regarding injury being caused to the victim-Khursal (PW-1). There is not enough evidence to convict him. If he is found involved in the incident then the case does not arise of attempt to murder. No serious harm has been found to have been caused to the victim-Khursal in the case. He further submits that the appellant was also beaten up by the victim’s side and the accused Shobhanath and Dilip Kumar were also examined by the doctor and they were also found injured. In such a situation, when no serious injury was found on Khursal (PW-1) and the appellant/accused was also beaten up, hence, the case does not amount to attempt to murder, at the most, the case may be made under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been detained in jail for about three months. Therefore, the