Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 35 (CHH)

Narottam Das Manikpuri v. State of C. G.

2013-01-22

RADHE SHYAM SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 20-12-2003 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar in Sessions Trial No. 147/2003. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Narottam Das Manikpuri has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner: Conviction Sentence Under Section 394 read with Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to Section 397 IPC pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: On 3-8-1996, complainant Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1), resident of Village Ghudaghat was going to Village Khapari along with his father Budhram and daughter-in-law Radhabai (PW 2) for getting a medical treatment of his father Budhram. At about 8 A.M., Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) stopped on the way for urination and Radhabai and his father Budhram went ahead. At that time, the appellant came there armed with knife and told that whatever money was kept with him be kept out otherwise he win kill with knife. The appellant assaulted Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) with knife. He prevented with his hand. Thereafter, knife blow was given on umbilical region. He shouted for help. Having heard the shout, Ramnarayan (PW 4) and two other boys came there. They caught the appellant and took him to village. Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) lodged First Information Report (Ex.P-1) in Police Station Bhatapara (Village). Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) was sent to Community Health Centre, Bhatapara for medical examination vide Ex.P-4A. Dr. Ashok Kumar Soni (PW 5) examined him and gave his report (Ex.P-4) in which he found abrasion linear 1 cm horizontal on umbilical region of anterior aspect of abdomen. The injury is simple in nature. The appellant was also sent to Community Health Centre, Bhatapara for medical examination and Dr. Ashok Kumar Soni (PW 5) examined him also and gave his report (Ex.P-5) in which he found multiple abrasions and bruises. In further investigation, knife was seized from the appellant vide Ex.P-2. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against appellant Narottam Das Manikpuri in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Raipur, from where it was received on transfer by 151 Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 3. 3. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava and Shri Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant argued that Radhabai (PW 2) and Ramnarayan (PW 4) did not support the case of the prosecution. Evidence of Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) is not reliable and cannot be based for conviction. Learned counsel further argued that the injury sustained by injured Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) is simple in nature. Therefore, ingredients of Section 397 IPC does not arise. Therefore the appellant deserves for acquittal. 4. On the contrary, Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General and Shri R.R. Sinha, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant do not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. Having heard rival contentions of the parties, I have perused the record of Sessions Trial No. 147/2003. The conviction of the appellant was based on the evidence of Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1). 6. Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) deposed that on 3-8-1996 at about 8:30 A.M., he was going Village Khapari along with his father and daughter-in-law Radhabai (PW 2) for getting the medical treatment of his father. When he reached near the field of one Baran Sahu, he stopped for urination and his father and daughter-in-law Radhabai (PW 2) went ahead for some distance. At that time, the appellant came there armed with knife and told that whatever money was kept with him be kept out otherwise he will kill with knife. The appellant assaulted Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) with knife. He prevented with his hand. Thereafter, knife blow was given on umbilical region. He shouted for help. Having heard the shout, Ramnarayan (PW 4) and two other boys were came there. They caught the appellant. On being asked his name, he told his name as Narottam Das Manikpuri resident of Village Udantal. 7. It is true that Radhabai (PW 2) did not support the case of the prosecution but she stated that on the date of incident, at about 7-8 A.M. they were going to Village Khapari for getting the medical treatment of father of his father-in-law. They went ahead for some distance. His father-in-law had' stopped. Shout of his father-in-law was heard. Since, a small child was in the lap, therefore, she did not go to the place of occurrence. They went ahead for some distance. His father-in-law had' stopped. Shout of his father-in-law was heard. Since, a small child was in the lap, therefore, she did not go to the place of occurrence. When the appellant was caught and brought in the village then she saw him. Ramnarayan Verma (PW 4) and Bhagwati Prasad (PW 3) also deposed that the appellant was caught and brought in the village. A knife was kept in his hand. Thereafter, he was taken to police station. 8. Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) and Sub-Inspector Krishna Pandey deposed that Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) lodged FIR (Ex.P-1) in Police Station Bhatapara (Village). They further deposed that Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) was sent to CHC, Bhatapara for medical examination. Dr. Ashok Kumar Soni (PW 5) deposed that he examined Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) and gave his report (Ex.P-4) in which he found abrasion linear 1 cm horizontal on umbilical region of anterior aspect of abdomen. The injury is simple in nature. 9. The date and time of the incident was 3-8-1996 at about 8 A.M. and the FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged on the same day at about 5:30 P.M. The distance between police station and place of occurrence is 22 kilometres and the appellant firstly brought in the village and he is produced before Village Sarpanch and thereafter the appellant had taken the police station along with knife. 10. The evidence of Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) was corroborated by medical evidence and also by FIR. There is no any evidence that relation between the appellant and injured Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) was inimical. The appellant was not acquainted with complainant Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) earlier. Therefore, Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. 11. Looking to the evidence of Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1), it is established that during the robbery, the appellant caused injury. His statement is cogent, reliable and conviction can be based on his testimony. 12. Now, I shall consider whether the appellant can be convicted under Section 394 IPC with the help of Section 397 IPC. 13. In Phool Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 905 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "5. ......... His statement is cogent, reliable and conviction can be based on his testimony. 12. Now, I shall consider whether the appellant can be convicted under Section 394 IPC with the help of Section 397 IPC. 13. In Phool Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 905 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "5. ......... The sentence of imprisonment to be awarded under Section 392 cannot be less than 7 years if at the time of committing robbery the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person: vide Section 397. A difficulty arose in several High Courts as to the meaning of the word "uses" in Section 397. The term 'offender’ in that section, as rightly held by several High Courts, is confined to the offender who uses any deadly weapon. The use of a deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract Section 397 for the imposition of the minimum punishment on another offender who had not used any deadly weapon. In that view of the matter use of the gun by one of the culprits whether he was accused Ram Kumar or some body else, (surely one was there who had fired three shorts) could not be and has not been the basis of sentencing the appellant with the aid of Section 397. So far as he is concerned he is said to be armed with a knife which is also a deadly weapon. To be more precise from the evidence of P.W. 16 "Phool Kumar had a knife in his hand." He was therefore carrying a deadly weapon open to the view of the victims sufficient to frighten or terrorize them. Any other overt act, such as, brandishing of the knife or causing of grievous hurt with it was not necessary to bring the offender within the ambit of Section 397 of the Penal Code." 14. In Niranjan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 10 SCC 459 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that accused persons entering the shop of the injured and on his refusal to hand over money when demanded inflicted one injury on his right arm with a knife. Another injury was caused on left side of chest just below the nipple by a knife. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 10 SCC 459 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that accused persons entering the shop of the injured and on his refusal to hand over money when demanded inflicted one injury on his right arm with a knife. Another injury was caused on left side of chest just below the nipple by a knife. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the facts of the instant case show that Section 397 IPC was rightly applied. Any hurt which endangers life is a grievous hurt. It would be seen that one of the injuries was caused just below the nipple. The term "endangers life" is much stronger than the expression "dangerous to life". Apart from that, in Section 97 "attempt" to cause grievous hurt attracts its application. Question whether the accused attempted to cause death or grievous hurt would depend upon the factual scenario. 15. In the instant case, the appellant demanded the money from injured Mattu alias Mantu (PW 1) and inflicted knife blow on his umbilical region. On the basis of the principles laid down in the above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the instant case, Section 397 IPC was also applied and learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly applied Section 397 IPC and convicted the appellant under Section 394 IPC read with Section 397 IPC. 16. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant under Section 394 read with Section 397 IPC does not suffer from any illegality and does not call for any interference. Therefore, the finding is upheld. 17. In the result, the appeal being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. It is stated that the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. He shall surrender before the trial Court forthwith to serve remaining part of sentence, if any. Appeal Dismissed.