AMARDEEP v. State of Chhattisgarh, through Station Officer P.S. Katghora, District

: Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board

25.07.2025 This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30/09/2004, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in S.T. No.209/2004, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence and sentenced as under:- 2 CRA No.881/2004 Conviction Sentence Under Section 323 of the IPC R.I. for 1 month Under Section 307 of the IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of fine, 3 months R.I. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently

1. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.02.2004 at about 11 a.m., the complainant Chandrapal Singh (PW-1)/injured was cutting the Paira (paddystraw) in the house of vijay Singh. At that time, the appellant was beating Kanhai Singh (PW-5)/injured and he was calling for help, thereafter, the complainant reached the spot and helped him, subsequently, the appellant also assaulted the complainant with farsi, as a result of which he had sustained injuries over his chest and left hand. Kanwal Singh and Kunjal Singh (PW-2) reached there, then the appellant fled away from the spot. Injured were taken to hospital and dehati nalsi was registered vide Ex.P-1. Medical examination of injured Chandrapal Singh was conducted by Doctor (PW-6) and submitted a report vide Ex.P-9. During investigation, on the basis of memorandum statement of appellant, weapon farsi was seized vide Ex.P-5. After due investigation, the appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-7 and charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.

2. The trial court has framed charges against the appellant for the aforementioned offence and the appellant abjured his guilt and 3 CRA No.881/2004 pleaded innocence.

3. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the overall evidence available on record for holding the appellant guilty. He submits that the so called incident took place between the appellant and Kanhai Singh, but Kanhai Singh was not reported the matter to the police and injuries suffered by Kanhai singh was not examined and the prosecution had also not produced his medical report. He further submits that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and they are also relatives. The complainant clearly stated that the appellant and Kunjal Singh (PW-2) have old animosity, but the learned trial Court has failed to consider it. The finding given by the learned trial Court against the appellant is perverse and contrary to evidence on record. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 4 CRA No.881/2004

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. He would submit that from the affidavit dated 27/8/2024 of the Superintendent of Police, Korba, it is manifest that eight criminal cases registered against the appellant during the period 1987 to

2005. From the said fact, it is quite vivid that the appellant is a habitual offender.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

7. PW-1, Chandrapal Singh, who is injured, stated in his evidence that he knows the the appellant. On the date of incident, he was cutting paddystraw in his store room. His father Padum Singh, Indrapal, Vijay Kumar and the machine operator were present there. At that time, the appellant was beating Kanhai Singh (PW- 5). He heard that Kanhai Singh shouting for help, then he reached the spot and stopped the fight. When he intervened, the appellant threatened to kill him and assaulted by Farsi on his chest. After that, Kunjan Singh, Chhatar Singh and Kanwal Singh came, thereafter, the appellant fled away from the spot. 5 CRA No.881/2004

8. PW-5, Kanhai Singh stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, after cutting tree, he met with the appellant near Chakhla Gosain Devta's place. There, he did not have any conversation with the appellant and he gone towards the river. He further stated that when he was going towards his home, near Ratandas's house, the appellant caught him and assaulted him, then he shouted for help, subsequently, Chandrapal Singh came to help him, thereafter, Chhatar Singh,Kanwal Singh also reached the spot and the appellant ran away from there.

9. PW-2, Kunjal Singh, son of Kanhai Singh stated in his evidence that Itwar Das informed him that the appellant had assaulted his father-Kanhai Singh. Then, on the way, he saw that his father got injured by the appellant. Thereafter, he went to search for appellant along with Chandrapal Singh, Kanwal Singh and Chhattar Singh. The appellant was found in the courtyard of Chandan Singh's house. Then, the appellant threatened them to kill. After that, Chandrapal Singh moved towards the appellant to stop him, subsequently, the appellant assaulted the Chandrapal Singh by means of farsi on his chest and left hand.

10. PW-3, Chhattar Singh, stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, he was informed by one Itwar Singh that the appellant had assaulted Kanhai Singh. Then, while he reached the spot, Kanhai Singh met and told that the appellant assaulted him. Thereafter, he reached the spot along with Chandrapal 6 CRA No.881/2004 Singh, Kanwal Singh, then the appellant threatened them not to interfere and when Chandrapal Singh tried stopped him, the appellant assaulted him by means of farsi on his chest and left hand. Subsequently, injured Chandrapal Singh taken to the hospital.

11. PW-6, Doctor, who conducted the medical examination of injured Chandrapal Singh PW-1 and submitted a report, in which, he found the following injuries:-

1. A cut wound measuring 6x1/2 inch was present in the chest, bleeding abundantly, which was deep upto the bone.

2. A cut wound measuring 2×1/2 inch was present on the forearm of left side. All the above injuries were caused by a sharp edge weapon and were of grievous in nature. He advised for X-ray and was referred to Hadred Bed Hospital Korba for necessary treatment.

12. Looking to the statement of Chandrapal Singh PW-1, that on the date on incident, he cutting the straw in his courtyard and when he heard the voice of Kanhai Singh PW-5, he reached the spot and saw that the appellant was assaulting Kanhai Singh, then he intervened the matter, to which, the appellant had also assaulted Chandrapal Singh by means of farsi on his chest and left hand. 7 CRA No.881/2004 Kunjal Singh PW-2, son of Kanhai Singh deposed that the appellant had assaulted his father-Kanhai Singh, then he started finding the appellant along with Chandrapal Singh and other villagers and after finding the appellant, the appellant threatened them to kill. He further deposed that when Chandrapal Singh tried to stop him, subsequently, the appellant had assaulted Chandrapal Singh PW-1 by means of farsi on his chest and left hand. Apart from that, on the basis of medical report of Chandrapal Singh PW-1, the injuries caused by the appellant to the Chandrapal Singh PW-1 were grievous in nature and caused by sharp edge weapon. Thus, it is the appellant who had assaulted the Chandrapal Singh PW-1 and the above injuries were proved by the medical report submitted by Doctor PW-6.

13. In the result, taking into consideration the evidence of Chandrapal Singh PW-1, Kanhai Singh PW-5, Kunjal Singh PW-2, Chattar Singh PW-3 and medical report Ex.P-9, in which the Doctor categorically stated that the injuries sustained by the complainant are grievous in nature, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has committed the said offence. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellant is hereby upheld.

14. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Appellant is on bail pursuant to the order passed by 8 CRA No.881/2004 this Court on dated 29-10-2004 and despite specific direction for his appearance before the Registry of this Court, the appellant never appeared during these two decades. Even ‘n’ number of bailable, non-bailable and permanent warrant of arrest were issued. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining sentence as awarded by the trial Court, failing which he shall be taken into custody by the trial Court.

15. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. The trial Court/concerned jail authorities are directed to inform the appellant that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/Amardeep