Chattisgarh High Court
Amit @ Pappu Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 December, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 884 of 2003
Order reserved on : 27/09/2021
Order delivered on : 03 /12/2021
Amit @ Pappu Soni, S/o Deendayal Soni, aged about 23
Years, R/o Lily Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.).
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur (C.G.).
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan,
through Legal Aid
For Respondent/State : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
CAV Order
03.12.2021
1. Present appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2003 passed by lXth
Additional Sessions Judge [FTC], Raipur, (C.G.) in Sessions Trial
No. 438/2002 whereby, the trial court has convicted the appellant
and sentenced him as under:-
S.No. Conviction Sentence
1. U/s 307 of R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-
IPC and in default 6 months R.I.
2. Section 25(1) R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and
([k-d) of Arms in default 3 months R.I.
Act
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.05.2002 at about 9:00
PM, complainant Pankaj Sharma lodged a report alleging that at
about 8:30 PM, some quarrel took place between the appellant and
Vinay Pansari, on account of which, appellant inflicted knife injuries
on his neck and stomach with an intention to kill him. As a result of
which, Vinay Pansari sustained severe injuries on his body. After
some time, co-accused- Bharat Soni came abusing Binay and this
witness caught him from behind, however, he resisted and ran away.
Thereafter, he was taken to hospital. FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered
against the appellant. Spot-map was prepared vide Ex. P/13. Dr.
M.P. Pujari (PW-8) and Dr. Pradeep Pandey (PW-10) medically
examined the injured and gave their reports vide Ex. P/14 & Ex.
P/25 respectively. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
the appellant and charges were framed against him under Section
307 of IPC r/w Section 25(1)([k-d) of Arms Act.
3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the
accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges leveled against him and
pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.
4. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, trial court has
convicted the appellant under Section 307 of IPC r/w Section 25(1)
([k-d) of Arms Act and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1.
Hence, this appeal filed by the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial
judge committed error in law regarding appreciation of evidence.
The statement of complainant is not reliable. His statement is full of
exaggeration and contradictory to the facts and circumstances of the
case. The learned trial judge should have considered the fact of non-
examination (giving up) of 8 witnesses from the list of charge-
sheeted witnesses, against the alleged eye-witnesses and that they
were not present at the spot at the time of incident and they reached
on the spot later, hence, the learned court has committed error while
giving undue weightage to their statements.
6. Manoj Pansari (PW-6) has admitted in his cross-examination
that he had seen two persons running from the spot from the back.
Statement of injured witness is not required after unexplained delay.
The learned trial Judge acted contrary to the principles of settled law
and, therefore, conviction of the appellant are liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State supported
the impugned judgment and submits that the sentence awarded by
the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.
8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
material available on record.
9. In this case, prosecution has examined two medical expert Dr.
M.P. Pujari (PW-8) and Dr. Pradeep Kumar Pandey (PW-10). Dr.
M.P. Pujari examined the victim on 01.05.2002 on the date of
incident and Dr. Pradeep Kumar Pandey was victim's treating doctor
and he opined that there were four injuries on victim's abdomen and
all the injuries were grievous in nature and in absence of operation,
appellant could die. It is clear from the medical evidence that injuries
of the victim were dangerous to life.
10. Vinay Pansari (PW-4) has stated that appellant and other
accused persons assaulted the victim with knife and in his cross-
examination, he denied all the suggestions of defence. FIR (Ex.P/1)
was lodged against both the accused persons on the same day
without any delay. One knife was seized from the appellant.
11. Pankaj Sharma (PW-3) and Shivendra Kumar (PW-5) did not
state anything against accused persons but brother of injured
person Manoj Kumar Pansari (PW-6) has stated against both the
accused persons.
12. Under these circumstances, it can be held that the prosecution
has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial
court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence convicted
the appellant under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 ([k-d) of
Arms Act. The findings of learned trial court are based on proper
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.
13. On the above discussion, the findings of learned trial court are
based on true facts and accordingly, the appeal has no merits and
the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
Ruchi/-
