Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the present appellants/ accused persons that they have been implicated falsely in this case. It is revealed from the statement of Medical Experts Dr. Pankaj Tiwari (P.W.17) and Dr. K. C. Kosta (P.W.19) that the injured persons have sustained simple injuries 5 MCRC-33858-2020 except Chhotelal who has sustained grievous injury in left hand in form of fracture in ulna bone and Sukhai who has sustained fracture on left parietal region as per the statement of Dr. K. C. Kosta (P.W.19). But Dr. K. C. Kosta (P.W.19) in para 3 of his chief examination has categorically stated that the injury was though grievous in nature but was not dangerous to life. Therefore, this version is binding on the prosecution. Though he has stated in para 1 of his chief examination that the injured has sustained injury on head and his right limb was paralyzed but it has not been stated by this witness that because of that injury, he was paralyzed. There is no connection between the injury and paralysis has been established by this witness. Therefore, it cannot be said that the paralysis was the natural consequence of the injuries sustained by victim Sukhai on the head. Moreover, he in para 2 has stated that in fronto temporal region, there was blood clotting. But even thereafter, he has stated that the injury was not dangerous to life. Therefore, it cannot be said that the offence under section 307 of IPC is made out. It is further submitted that the incidence has been occurred in the sudden anger. There was no mens rea behind the alleged act of the present accused persons. More over there was previous enmity between the parties as the complainant party tried to encroach the Government land which was in possession of the accused persons and due to that dispute they have been implicated falsely. There is no independent support of the witnesses. The witnesses supported the incident, are the injured persons. Therefore, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, they are not reliable witnesses. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant prays for allowing 6 MCRC-33858-2020 the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the present appellants/ accused persons.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and supports the appeal against conviction and the appeals filed on behalf of the State for enhancement as well as acquittal of the accused persons from Section 307 of IPC on the ground that there is ample material on record in the light of statement of Dr. Pankaj Tiwari (P.W.17) and Dr. K. C. Kosta (P.W.19) that the injury caused to injured Satai was dangerous to life as the injured has sustained paralysis in right limb and blood was also clotted. Though Dr. K. C. Kosta (P.W.19) has stated that injury was not dangerous to life but having regard to the nature of injury, offence under Section 307 of IPC clearly made out. Moreover, keeping in view the injury sustained by the injured persons, the sentence under Section 325 of IPC is on lower side, because as many as two persons Chhotelal and Satai have sustained grievous injury by hard and blunt object and other injured persons Sukhwariya and Budhsen has sustained simple injuries. Learned counsel for the State prays for enhancement of sentence and also to convict the accused persons for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and to appropriately sentence them for the said offence.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record meticulously.

11. As per the statement of Dr. K. C. Kosta (P.W.19), Satai has sustained grievous injury on his left parietal region, which is a vital part and that injury was grievous in nature as fracture has been found there. Though he has 7 MCRC-33858-2020 stated that there was a paralysis in the right limb and some blood was clotted in the frontotemporal region. Both these injuries of paralysis and clotting of blood was not present there on the part which sustained grievous injuries. Rather, they were found on the other part and no connection between such injury qua paralysis and blood clotting has been established by this witness. Rather he has stated that the injury found to be grievous but not found to be dangerous to live and this statement of this witness in chief examination is binding upon the prosecution. Moreover, he in cross examination has stated that he has only seen the CT Scan report, and prepared bed head ticket (Exhibit P/34). CT scanning was not done in his presence and under his supervision. He also admitted in the cross examination that he cannot say that the injury was how old. Injury on left parietal region in form of fracture per se, coupled with attending facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be caused with intention or knowledge to cause murder of the victim Satai. Thus, this injury doesn't indicate it as a case under Section 307 of IPC.