1- Ravishankar S/o Ramgopal, aged about 56 years, R/o Jairamnagar, Police Station Masturi, District v. State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2025:CGHC:41832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 909 of 2006 1- Ravishankar S/o Ramgopal, aged about 56 years, R/o Jairamnagar, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Hridesh @ Anu S/o Ravishankar Mishra, aged about 19 years. R/o Jairamnagar, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 – Jyotirmani S/o Ravishankar Mishra, aged about 22 years, R/o Jairamnagar, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants For State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Arpan Verma, counsel on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. Mr. Afroz Khan, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 19.08.2025 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2006 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Case No. 83/2006 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced 2 as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 307 read with R.I. for 07 years with fine of Section 34 of I.P.C. Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for one month. U/s 323 read with R.I. for 01 year. Section 34 of I.P.C. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No. 1 Ravishankar Mishra had died on 09.11.2012 and he has filed the death certificate issued by the competent authority with covering memo dated 29.01.2005. He also submits that the State counsel has also verified the said fact and filed covering memo dated 06.02.2025 along with the report of S.H.O. Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). As such, the appeal in respect of appellant No.1 Ravishankar Mishra stands abated. 3. In absence of any representation for bringing any legal representatives of appellant No. 01 on record, the appeal in respect of appellant No. 1 abates and dismissed as abated. Now, the instant appeal is confined only in respect of appellant No. 2 & appellant No. 3. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 294, 506(2), 323/34, 307/34 of IPC. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged on 20.11.2005 at about 8:00 O’ clock by one Chander Bai at Police Station Masturi and Crime No. 388/2005 was registered. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged inter alia on the allegations that the accused No. 01 namely Ravishankar Mishra is the neighbour of the complainant. It was alleged that on the date of incident, i.e., on 28.11.2005 there was some dispute between the accused No. 1 and the daughter of the 3 complainant namely Manjulata and it was some heated argument between them. It is alleged that the appellants No. 2 & 3 used filthy language and abused Manjulata and thereafter they assaulted her with a wooden stick and when the husband of the complainant came out from the house, the accused persons/appellants have assaulted her husband (Utara Kumar Sahu) too. 5. Thereafter, the accused/appellants were taken into custody and the statement of the accused persons/appellants and other relevant witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate and the case was committed to the 8th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) for offence under Sections 307/34 of IPC and 323/34 of IPC. 6. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, 01 witness has been adduced in their defence. 7. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the ingredients of Section 307 & 323 of IPC. There is no evidence on record which shows that the accused persons/appellants have assaulted Manjulata (PW/09) and Utara 4 Kumar Sahu (PW/11) with an intention to cause death. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate Ex. P/03 where he it is specifically mentioned that the injuries sustained by Manjulala (PW/09) were of simple in nature. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the medical evidence properly and wrongly convicted the appellants under Section 307/34 of IPC. The learned trial Court only relied upon the interested witnesses and gave wrong finding. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant No. 01 Ravishankar Mishra had died and this instant appeal is confined only in respect of appellant No. 2 & appellant No. 3. At that time the appellants No. 2 & 3 were aged about 19 and 22 years, now they are aged more than 40 years; they have remained in jail for more than 04 months and 25 days, they has never misused the liberty while being on bail, the incident took place in the year 2005 and this appeal is pending since 2006, as such in the interest of justice the appellants No. 2 & 3 may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 9. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present appellants No. 2 & 3, so this appeal is being devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5 10. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 11. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506 (II), Section 323/34 and Section 307/34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellants under Sections 294 & 506(II) and convicted them under Sections 323/34 and 307/34 of IPC. 12. (PW/02) Dharmendra, (PW/03) Panchkumar have not supported the prosecution case and they have turned hostile. (PW/09) Manjulata stated that on the date of incident, the appellant No. 1 abused her using filthy language as she was taking soil and his two sons came there holding wooden sticks in their hand and then all three accused persons/appellants assaulted her with stick and she sustained injuries on her head and left leg and her father Utara Kumar intervened the incident to rescue his daughter and he was also being abused by filthy language and was also beaten due to which he sustained injury on his head. 13. (PW/01) Dr. J.P. Arya examined Utara Kumar and found two contusions and gave his report vide Ex. P/01 and as per his report, injuries are simple in nature. He also examined Kumari Manjulata and advised her for X-Ray vide Ex. P/02. 14. (PW/06) Dr. Arjit Pure stated that as per X-Ray report he finds fracture 6 on left frontal bone vide Ex. P/12. Statement of (PW/09) Manjulata and (PW/11) Utara Kumar Sahu is supported by medical report, as such it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that all appellants have assaulted Manjulata and Utara Kumar Sahu and they sustained injuries due to the assault. 15. (PW/01) Dr. J.P. Arya stated by looking at the injuries of injured Manjulata that If immediate treatment was not given, death would not have occurred because approximately 4-6 hours had passed from the time of injury to treatment. However, the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact that injuries are not fatal to life and convicted the appellants No. 2 and 3 under Section 307 of IPC. So, findings recorded under Section 307 of IPC by the learned trial Court is not sustainable, but looking to the statement of (PW/06) Dr. Arjit Pure, It is clear that Manjulata sustained grievous injuries. As such, conviction of the appellants are altered from 307/34 of IPC to 325/34 of IPC. 16. As such, looking to the statement of witnesses and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellants under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. As such, the conviction of the appellants under Section 323/34 of IPC is hereby maintained. 17. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2005 and this appeal is pending since 2006. The appellants No. 2 & 3 are now aged more than 40 years and they are facing lis since 20 years; and they have remained in jail for more than 04 months and 25 7 daya, they did not misuse the liberty so granted to her while being on bail, thus considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2005 and the total detention period of the accused/appellants, this Court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be served if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC. 18. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellants under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them in the aforesaid Sections. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 19. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 20. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge U. K. Raju