1 - Nand Ram S/o Parash Ram Satnami aged about 38 years R/o Nawapara v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:5660 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 879 of 2003 1 - Nand Ram S/o Parash Ram Satnami aged about 38 years R/o Nawapara Bhondu P. S. Lormi Distt. Bilaspur (CG) --- Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 987 of 2003 1 - Vishnu S/o Itwari Sakat aged about 28 years, R/o Navapara, P. S. & Tahsil Lormi Dist: Bilaspur (CG). --- Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lormi --- Respondent(s) For Appellants For Respondent(s) For complainant : : :
Legal Reasoning
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.452 of 2003 and another connected matter decided on 03.07.2024 and in Criminal Appeal No.651 of 2004 decided on 25.10.2024. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for appellants and submits that from the statement of victims and the material 4 brought before it, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants. Hence, these appeals are liable to be dismissed. 7. Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate also supports the judgment impugned and submits that meritorious findings have been recorded and injury is not sine qua non to hold that the appellants were not intending to cause death of the victims. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. The first question which comes to determination as to whether the appellants are author of the crime or not. 10. Victims Vijay Kumar (PW-1) and Samol Das (PW-2) in their statement have categorically deposed the happening of the incident and described the manner in which the assault was made by the appellants and the doctor (PW-3) has also medically examined the witnesses and found five injuries on the person of the victims. The oral evidence of the victims corroborated by medical evidence clearly establishes the involvement of the appellants in the aforesaid crime and therefore, the submission that appellants have not committed the aforesaid offence, cannot stand and therefore, the submission is rejected. 11. Now the question would be whether the appellants can be convicted under Section 307 of IPC. Initially doctor examined the victims and found five injuries on head and other parts of the body. The doctor has referred the matter for higher treatment. The trial Court has not given a finding as to whether the injuries were grievous in nature. Of course the injuries are not the only factor to determine the intention of the appellants to cause death. However it is apparent on record that there was enmity on account of property dispute and in fact the injuries sustained by the victims cannot be said to be grievous in nature in the absence of any positive evidence on record and no fracture on the person of the body was also found, considering the entire 5 facts and circumstances and evidence on record this Court cannot hold that the appellants can be held guilty under Section 307/34 of IPC. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Shivamani & Another Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police reported in Criminal Appeal No. 3619 of 2023 in para 09 which reads as under:- “ In State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. In the same judgment, it was pointed out that ‘...The Court has to2024:CGHC:23556 see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention of knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. ‘ The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (Supra) and Kanha (Supra), it was observed that while grievous or life-threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.’ 13. In the light of above judgment and in this case also prosecution has failed to prove its case that injuries of victim Vijay Kumar (PW-1) and Samol Das (PW-2) are dangerous to life and the same were caused in an attempt to commit murder of the injured. So, this case offence under Section 307/34 of IPC is not made out. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC is altered to Section 323/34 of IPC. 14. As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident is said to have taken place in the year 2001 and nearly 24 years are rolled by since then, the appellants are now aged persons, they remained in jail for 5 days, they are on bail and did not misuse the liberty, their sentence liable to be reduced to the period already 6 undergone by them. This Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served, if the appellants are sentenced under Section 323/34 to the period already undergone by them.
Arguments
Mr. Siddhant Das and Mr. Chandrikaditya Sharma, Advocates Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G. A. Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate 2 ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Judgment on Board 30/01/2025 1. As both the appeals are arising out of impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.07.2003 passed in S.T. No. 289/01 by Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli District Bilaspur (CG) (for short “ trial Court”) they are being heard analogously and decided by this common judgment. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- conviction U/s 307/34 IPC Sentence RI for 3 years & fine of Rs.500/- in default of fine U/s 307/ 34 IPC RI for 3 years & fine of Rs.500/- in default of fine further SI for 6 months further SI for 6 months 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 28.01.2001 at about 10:00 am, at the incident place village Navapara on account of dispute over property, the appellants assaulted complainant Vijay Kumar (PW-1) and Samoldas (PW-2), threatened to kill them, filthily abused and inflicted gruesome injuries on their head, hands and legs with help of Lathi and Danda. The incident was reported to the Police Station and after due investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court which was made over to the learned trial Court for trial. The appellants were charged for offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC each, however, they denied the charges framed against them and claimed for trial. Learned trial court on appreciation of evidence convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. 3. So as to establish its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. The statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded where they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 3 4. By the judgment impugned learned Court below has held the accused/appellants guilty and imposed the sentence as described above which is challenged before this Court by the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the findings recorded by trial Court is bad in law and contrary to evidence and material on record. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence brought before it to its proper perspective and erroneously convicted the appellants as stated above. He submits that the injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature and there is no fracture on the person of the victims therefore, the appellants cannot be convicted under Section 307/34 of IPC. It is established on record that there was previous enmity on account of property dispute, therefore, the appellants were falsely implicated. He further submits that although the doctor is of the opinion that if proper treatment was not given, the injuries would have resulted in death. However the doctor has not opined that the injuries were grievous in nature simply because the doctor has stated the above fact, it cannot lead to presumption that intention of the appellants to commit the murder of the victim. He submits that there was no intention to cause death of the victims as the appellants have not taken undue advantage and no blood stains were found in the bamboo stick which is easily available with the villagers, therefore, appellants may be given benefit of doubt and they may be acquitted from all the charges. Alternatively he submits that the conviction of the appellants may be altered to Section 323 of IPC and the sentenced may be reduced to period already undergone. In support of his arguments he placed reliance upon the decision of
Decision
15. In the result, the criminal appeals are partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby altered to Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The impugned judgments extend modified to the above extent. 16. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS Act. 17. 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. PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.02.05 10:41:52 +0530 Parul Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE