Chattisgarh High Court
Manish Kumar Lee vs State on 20 September, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 793 of 2001
Manish Kumar Lee S/o Benjamin Lee aged about 24 years,
Student of B.A. 1st year, R/o Village Sargawa (Ambikapur),
District - Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : State House Officer, Police
Station, Ambikapur, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, PL.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order On Board
20/09/2021
1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 09.08.2001 passed by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja
(C.G.), in Session Trial No. 184/1996 whereby, the learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced
him as under :-
Conviction Sentence
R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in
U/s 307 of IPC default of payment additional R.I. for One
year.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.03.1996 at 7 o'clock in
the morning Ravindra Vishwas (PW-2) went to Dasai Uraon's house
along with his elder brother for formation of the Fishery Committee
and to sign the form when were returning home by bicycle after
signing the form, as soon as they reached in front of Goya's house,
the accused came out of his house carrying a sword and with
intention to hit him on the head, hands and right leg from behind.
Vishwajeet, Parasram and Goya have witnessed the incident.
Report was lodged by Vishwajeet (PW-1) at Police Station,
Ambikapur.
3. H.N. Singh (PW-7) registered the FIR vide Ex.-P/1 and
thereafter Ravindra Vishwas (PW-2) was sent for medical
examination vide Ex.-P/7. Blood Sample and Soil were collected
from the place of incident vide Ex.-P/8. Spot map was prepared
before the witnesses vide Ex.-P/9. Dr. J.K. Jain (PW-9) medically
examined the victim and gave his report vide Ex.P/7'A' and advised
for x-ray. Which was done by Dr. M.K. Jain (PW-10) who gave his
report vide Ex.P/12. He opined that there were multiple fractures on
the bone of left shoulder, left hand, right hand and right leg. The
sword seized from the accused vide Ex.P/6, was sent for medical
examination. Dr. J.K. Jain examined the seized sword and gave his
report vide Ex.-P/11'A'. After completion of investigation, charge-
sheet was filed and charges were framed by the trial Court.
4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution
has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the
accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and
pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.
5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 09.08.2001, learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur has convicted and sentenced
the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and
sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-
with default stipulation. Hence, the present appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record including the impugned judgment.
7. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial
Court has committed an error in relying upon the testimony of
Ravindra Vishwas (PW-2) and as well as upon Vishwajeet Vishwas
(PW-1). Kristo Rai (Pw-3) ought to have held that PW-1 being
brother of complainant is not reliable and interested witness. He
next submitted that the prosecution has failed to examine material
witnesses, Shanker, Lambu, Kalpana, Shanti, Parasram etc. they
could have stated the correct scene of the incident if any, this fact
goes against the prosecution and makes the case of the
prosecution doubtful. He also submitted that the findings of
conviction is based on surmises and conjectures and there is no
legal evidence available on the record to sustain the conviction and
finding are perverse. He lastly submitted that the incident is said
to have taken place in the year 1996, and thereby more than 25
years have rolled by since then, the appellant is aged about more
than 45 years has remained in jail more than five months,
therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the
sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
8. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to this
proposition.
9. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence
of the witnesses Vishwajeet Vishwas (PW-1), Ravindra Vishwas (PW-
2), Kristo Rai (PW-3), Pancho Vishwas (PW-4), Subhash Rai (PW-5),
Harendra (PW-6), H.N. Singh (PW-7), Mukteshwar Singh Chandel
(PW-8), Dr. J.K. Jain (PW-9), Dr. M.K. Jain (PW-10) and R.N. Singh
(PW-11), it's establish that the involvement of the
accused/applicant in the crime in question stands proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
10. Vishwajeet Vishwas (PW-1), Ravindra Vishwas (PW-2), Kristo
Rai (PW-3) and Pancho Vishwas (PW-4) have stated in their
statements about the assault with sword by the appellant. Dr. J.K.
Jain (PW-9) has specifically stated that the injuries were likely to
cause death, this opinion is not based on any specific medical
report because Dr. M.K. Jain (PW-10) has not found any fracture on
skull bone, he found fracture on left shoulder, left hand, right hand
and on right leg, and not on vital organs. It is proved from the
testimony of the eye-witnesses that the victim was assaulted with
sword by the appellant. Looking to the medical evidence on record,
the injuries cannot be said to be of the nature which was likely to
cause death.
11. However, considering that the appellant assaulted the victim
with sword which is a dangerous weapon, and in this case
commission of offence under Section 326 IPC is certainly made out.
It has been submitted that the appellant has already undergone
more than five months of imprisonment and the appellant is more
than 45 years; middle aged person the conviction of appellant
under Section 307 of IPC is set aside and instead of it he is
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC.
12. Taking into consideration that the incident has taken place in
the year 1996, the appellant had undergone the agony of long
drawn trial and has remained for at least a period of five months in
jail, I consider the present to be a fit case for awarding sentence to
the period which he has already undergone. Apart from that, he
shall pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of the payment of fine, he
shall be liable to undergo R.I. for a period of six months. On
recovery of the fine, the entire amount shall be paid to the victim.
Earlier the appellant has paid Rs. 20,000/- therefore, now appellant
has to pay Rs. 80,000/-.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
H. L. Sahu
