Recovered bullets and above mentioned armoury were examined by PW 8 Girija Shankar Shrivastava, who companyducted armour examination and gave his report Ex.
He further submitted that the police station is in Naxalite area.
In defence, DW 1 Uttamchandra Rao was examined.
The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused, in reply to which he took the defence that on 19.1.2003, he was on duty to guard the police station between 9.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m., and the Station In charge had instructed him number to allow more than two persons to enter the police station.
The trial companyrt, after hearing the parties, found that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part II, 324 and 326 IPC.
1322 of 2003 before the High Court.
The accused further took the plea that since more than two persons attempted to enter the police station and started quarreling with him, he had to open fire in air.
58 of 2003, against accused appellant Vipul Kumar Vipulesh under Sections 294, 324, 326 and 506 Part II of Indian Penal Code IPC .
P/25 .
The appellant did number stop there and he took up rifle, and fired shots due to which PW 4 Kamal Singhaniya and one Rajesh Motwani PW 9 sustained injuries.
P/20 in companynection with this case was lodged at the Police Station, Gandai.
PW 3 Subodh Singhaniya lodged First Information Report against the person apprehended.
But the present appellant Vipul Kumar Vipulesh Constable at the police station, instigated the person apprehended by PW 3 Subodh Singhaniya and others, and asked him to lodge report against them.
Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 15.12.2003, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh in Sessions Case No.
P/16 the injuries found on the person of above named injured, and prepared injury report Ex.
It is pertinent to mention here that we have issued numberice in this appeal only on the quantum of sentence at the time of entertaining the Special Leave Petition.
As such, First Information Report Ex.
When PW 3 Subodh Singhaniya protested and questioned the appellant as to why he was protecting a wrong person, he appellant started hurling abuses, and used fowl and vulgar language against Subodh Singhaniya and others.
Three bullets were taken out from the body of above injured persons.
After the case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions, the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, framed charge in respect of offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part II and 307 IPC, to which the accused pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
After companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Vipul Kumar Vipulesh.
The High Court, after hearing the parties, companycurred with the view taken by the trial companyrt that the charge in respect of offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part II, 324 and 326 IPC stood proved on the record and declined to interfere with the sentence awarded against him, as such, the criminal appeal was dismissed.
After hearing the parties on sentence, the trial companyrt sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 294 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 506 Part II, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 324 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years under Section 326 IPC.
The injuries on the person of Kamal Singhaniya were found to be grievous in nature, while injuries sustained by Rajesh Motwani were simple in nature.
Injured PW 9 Rajesh Motwani and PW 4 Kamal Singhaniya were taken to hospital for medical treatment.
Sealed Rifle, cartridge cases, recovered from the appellant, and bullets found and blood stained clothes of the injured were sent for examination to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh.
P/17 .
PW 2 Dr. G.S. Thakur recorded in his report Ex.
58 of 2003, companyvict Vipul Kumar Vipulesh filed Criminal Appeal No.
Both of them, with the help of PW 12 Om Prakash Agrawal, caught the trespasser, suspecting that he had entered the house to companymit theft, and took him to police station, Gandai.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.1.2003 at about 10.30 p.m., an unknown person entered in the house of PW 4 Kamal Singhaniya and PW 3 Subodh Singhaniya.
Hence, this appeal through special leave.
From the possession of the appellant Rifle SLR and 47 cartridges with two empty magazines were seized.
On this, prosecution examined PW 1 G.P. Sharma, PW 2 Dr. G.S. Thakur, PW 3, Subodh Kumar Singhaniya, PW 4 Kamal Singhaniya, PW 5 Dr. M.G. Tiwari, PW 6 Narayan Prasad Sharma, PW 7 Roop Lal Patel Patwari , PW 8 Girija Shankar Shrivastava, PW 9 Rajesh Motwani, PW 10 Amit Agrawal, PW 11 Dr. Jogesh Chandra Maruhal, PW 12 Om Prakash Agrawal and PW 13 S.I. T.R. Sahu.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated October 3, 2013, passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.
Thereafter, the injured were referred from primary health centre, Gandai to Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai where also injuries on left thigh, testis, scrotum and penis of PW 4 Kamal Singhaniya, and in respect of Rajesh Motwani gunshot injuries suffered on his right thigh, were recorded.
1322 of 2003 whereby said Court has affirmed the companyviction and sentence recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, in Session Case No.
