Durg (C.G.) v. State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Durg
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.26 16:56:33 +0530 2025:CGHC:14389 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 86 of 2007 Devnath, S/o Rama Dhobi, aged about 31 years, R/o Village Khilaorakhurd, P.S. Bori District-Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board (25.03.2025) 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 12.01.2007, passed learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, Chhattisgarh, in S.T. No.30/2006, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 4 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Gangadhar Patel (PW-4), owned a piece of land in Tenkakhar in the name of his wife Kantibai (PW-8). There had been a long-standing dispute over this land between them and the co-accused persons, Laxmichand and Chetan. This dispute was also pending in the Civil Court. Due to this, co-accused Laxmichand and Chetan held a grudge against complainant Gangadhar. On the evening of 15th August 2005, at around 5:30 PM, when Gangadhar was returning from his field, near a drain (nala), he saw Laxmichand and appellant Devnath who is working for Laxmichand. As he moved forward, Devnath came running from behind and attacked him with a bana (a sharp weapon) and a sickle, inflicting grievous injuries. Hearing Gangadhar’s screams, Santosh (PW-6) came there, and seeing Santosh, Devnath fled the scene. Thereafter the matter was informed to Ropusudan (PW-5) and others, thereafter an FIR was lodged. Gangadhar was sent for medical examination at a hospital. Dr. R. K. Dewangan (PW-10) conducted his medical examination. During investigation, seizure of clothes of Gangadhar and the accused was made. After completion of entire investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant and other co-accused persons. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents in support of its case. The statement of the appellant has been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication in this case. 3 4. The learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, acquitted co- accused persons Laxmichand and Chetan for the offence levelled against them and also acquitted the appellant herein for offence U/s 120-B of IPC, however, convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no offence under Section 307 of IPC can be made out against the appellant and at the best, offence under Section 326 of IPC would be made out as there was no intention of the appellant to commit murder of injured Gangadhar (PW-4). The appellant is only working for co-accused Laxmichand on his field. He would further submit that from the statement of Dr. R.K. Dewangan (PW-10) and his report report (Ex.P-10), it is clear that the injuries sustained by the victim Gangadhar were grievous in nature but, were not life-threatening, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of I.P.C. may be altered/converted to Section 326 of I.P.C. and he may sentenced to the period already undergone by him, as he has already remained in jail for about 1 year 8 months. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 8. Dr. R.K. Dewangan (PW-10) medically examined the victim Gangadhar on 15.08.2005 and given a report vide Ex.P-10 4 and found the following injuries on the body of victim Gangadhar: 1. A cut wound (5×5 cm) on the back of the left shoulder. 2. A cut wound (13×5 cm) on the outer left forearm, exposing muscles and weakening the wrist. 3. A cut wound (5×2 cm) near the right ear. 4. A cut wound (2×1 cm) on the left eyebrow. 5. Amputation of the right thumb (the final phalanx was severed). 6. A cut wound (10×2 cm) on the back of the head. 7. An incised wound (5×2 cm) near injury no. 6. 8. A cut wound (3×2 cm) near outer part of injury no. 7. Injuries 6, 7, and 8 were classified as punctured wounds. 9. Dr. R.K. Dewangan (PW-10) in his Court statement stated that the above injuries of the victim were caused with hard and sharp object. In his opinion, the injuries were grievous in nature but, were not life-threatening. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Kishan and State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh and Others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2127 , while dealing with the case of acquittal of accused persons under Section 307/149 of IPC has held in para 7 which reads as under: “7. On the first question as to acquittal of the accused under s.307/149 IPC, some significant aspects may be borne in mind. Under s.307 IPC what the Court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge or the accused must be such as is necessary constitute' murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". Under s. 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used. motive for the crime,severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. In this case, two parties in the course of a fight 5 inflicted on each other injuries both serious and minor. The accused though armed with ballam never used the sharp edge of it. They used only the blunt side of it despite they being attacked by the other side. They suffered injuries but not provoked or tempted to use the cutting edge of the weapon. It is very very significant. It seems to us that they had no intention to commit murder. They had no motive either. The fight as the High Court has observed, might have been a sudden flare up. Where the fight is accidental owing to a sudden quarrel, the conviction under s. 307 is generally not called for. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb the acquittal of accused under s. 307 IPC. 11. In the matter of Mohan Chandaniya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRA No.452/2003 on 03.07.2024, this Court has held in paragraph 11 which reads as under:- “11. It has been held by Hon’ble the 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 to 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.” 12. Thus, in light of the above judgments, looking to the nature of the incident and the situation of assault with a sickle, 6 reflects that the appellant assaulted the victim over the issue of land dispute between the co-accused persons and wife of the victim Kantibai. There is no evidence available on record to show that the injuries which were sustained by the victim were life-threatening. Dr. R.K. Dewangan (PW-10) who medically examined victim Gangadhar has also given his opinion that the injuries sustained by the victim were grievous in nature but, were not life- threatening. It does not appear that the intention of the appellant was to cause death of injured Gangadhar (PW-4) and the said injuries were caused in the attempt to do so. In such a situation, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for an attempt to murder is not found appropriate, rather the crime of the appellant falls under the category of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for grievous injury caused with a hard and sharp object. 13. In that view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant is altered/converted to Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. As regards the sentence part for offence U/s 326 IPC is concerned, keeping in view that the incident had taken place in the year 2005 about 19 years ago and further considering the fact that the appellant is currently aged about 50 years and have family responsibilities, he is facing the lis since 2005, he has already remained in jail for about 1 year 8 months and he has no criminal antecedent, in the interest of justice, in considered opinion of this Court, it is appropriate to sentence the appellant to the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year 8 months for offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. However, the fine amount of Rs. 500/- shall remain intact. It is ordered accordingly. 7 15. The Appellant is reported to be on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 16. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Shubham Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge