PREM SINGH PAIKARA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are that in the intervening night of 19-20/06/2006 at about 12.00 o'clock when the injured/victim (PW-1) was sleeping in his filed for watching the Rabi crop, then appellants came there and assaulted with an axe on the neck and left hand of the victim (PW-1) with an intention to commit murder. Immediately the victim woke up and tried to save him from the attack of the appellants. It is alleged that while the victim was caught hold by appellant No.2 then the assault caused on him by appellant No.1 with an axe, as result of assault, the injured sustained injuries on his left portion of lip, mouth and on the left wrist. It is also alleged that from the attack of axe, left portion of lip got chopped off from his mouth. After that the appellants left him on the spot and run from there. Subsequently, the victim went to the house of Mansai (not examined) for help then the children of Mansai informed about the incident to Lalitram- elder brother of victim after that the victim (PW-1) was taken to police station Ratanpur for making report wherefrom he was admitted in the hospital for treatment vide Ex.P-10. Based on this FIR (Ex.P-1), offences under Section 307/34 IPC was registered against them. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants under the same sections followed by framing of charge accordingly.

(2.) Learned Court below vide judgment impugned dated 24.01.2007 passed in Sessions Case No. 370/2006 acquitted the accused/appellants under Sections 307/34 IPC but has held them guilty under Sections 324/34 and sentencing each of them with imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- plus default stipulations. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by trial court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence collected by the prosecution. Apart from advancing strenuous arguments on merit, learned counsel for the appellants eventually slackened his stand and confined his prayer for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, which in this case comes to about 6 months.