Order On Board

14/11/2017

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa in Special Sessions Case No.145/2007 on 14.12.2007, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 325 of the IPC and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with usual default stipulation. The charge-sheet was filed under Sections 294, 506-II & 325 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (10) of the Scheduled Tribes & Scheduled Castes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act, 1989'), however, the conviction was made only under Section 325 of the I.P.C.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 15.06.2007 near the house of the complainant Samaru Kanwar one fertilizer pit (Dhurwa) was prepared, wherefrom the father of the appellant Berecharam Kewat, his wife and his son were taking out the fertilizer, which was objected by the complainant Samaru Kanwar on the ground that because of such fertilizer pit dirt and filth spreads near his house. Such objection turned into hot exchange of words and at that time, the appellant came and caught hold of the hand of the victim Samaru and threw him over a stone, which was lying nearby and sat over him. By such act the complainant Samaru sustained injuries on his ribs. Thereafter, he having been subjected to medical check up & X-ray, it was found that his ribs were fractured. On the basis of the F.I.R., the investigation was carried out. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court. Initially the charges were framed under Sections 294, 506-II & 325 of the I.P.C. read with Section 3 (1) (10) of the Act, 1989 and the trial commenced on such charges.

3. During the course of trial, the appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.

4. The learned Court below after evaluating the evidence of the complainant and the witnesses, acquitted the appellant under Section 294, 506-II of the I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (10) of the Act, 1989. While the appellant was convicted under Section 325 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced as aforesaid.

Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the incident happened on a spur of moment in which both the parties entered into scuffle. He would further submit that it is not a case where intentionally the injury was caused, but during the scuffle of the appellant and the victim, they fell down and the victim had sustained injury. He further submits that as per the statement of the witness, it would be evident that the dispute arose because of the fact that both the parties were objecting over a construction of the house, therefore, no intention can be gathered from the acts committed. He would further submit that nature of injury was accidental as such the cause cannot be attributed to the appellant and the appellant is liable to be discharged in this case.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the order of the trial Court is well merited which do not call for any interference.

7. I have perused the documents & statements of the witnesses and heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The FIR in this case is marked as Ex. P-5 which was lodged on 20.06.2007 for the incident of 15.06.2007. The victim Samaru in this case was examined as PW-1. He has stated that on the date of incident while the family members of the appellant were taking out the fertilizer from the man made pit, it was objected by him. Having objected, the appellant came there, abused him and threw him on the ground and mounted over him and also caught hold of his neck, whereby he sustained injury at his chest and back. He further contended that he was referred to the hospital and was examined by the doctors.

9. The eye witnesses Ful Singh (PW-2) & Shiv Charan (PW-3) though have said in their statements that they were present at the time of incident but in the cross-examination it would rev