JODHU SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is alleged that on 07.07.2000 when complainant Ramnath (PW-1) was taking his father-in-law Bodhiram (PW-6) to Mungeli hospital for the treatment of his injury which he had suffered earlier at the hands of accused Jodhu and while they were on the way, near a canal all the accused/appellants met them, picked-up verbal feud and in furtherance thereof accused Jodhu started assaulting Bodhuram with the help of Lathi carried with him. Other accused persons also caused injures to Bodhiram (PW-6). While opening an assault the accused/appellants had also expressed their intention of eliminating Ramnath (PW-1) saying that one day he would stand as a witness against them. On account of an assault Bodhiram suffered injuries on his hands and legs for which he took treatment in the hospital being admitted for 22 days. The complainant (PW-1) is also said to have been assaulted by the accused Jodhu with the help of Lathi as a result of which he suffered injuries on his left eye. Thereafter, the report (Ex.P-1) was lodged on the basis of which offence under Section 307/34 IPC was registered against all the accused persons. After completion of investigation and medical examination of Bodhiram (PW-6), the charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellants under Section 307/34 IPC followed by framing of charge accordingly.

(2.) Learned Court below by the judgment impugned dated 20.08.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No.350/2000 did not find any of the accused guilty under Section 307 IPC and thus acquitted them of the said charge. They however, have been convicted under Section 325/34 IPC for voluntarily causing grievous injuries to PW-6 and under Section 323/34 for causing simple multiple injuries to Ramnath (PW-1) by imposing sentence of 6 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323/34 and one year RI with fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 325/34 IPC, plus default stipulations. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that earlier the complainant party had also opened an assault on the accused party for which a case is separately going on in the Court of learned Magistrate, and thus this is a case of false implication in a bid to take personal vengeance. He submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and therefore, they are not trustworthy and cannot be made a basis for conviction of the accused/appellants as has been done by the Court below. He submits that the judgment impugned is not based on correct analysis of the evidence of the witnesses in particular PW-1 and PW-6 and therefore also the same cannot be sustainable in the eye of law.