Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:38472 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR 1. 2. 3. CRA No. 216 of 2007 Shiv Prasad, S/o Shri Jodhiram Shrivas, aged about 52 years, Sanjay Kumar, S/o Shiv Prasad Shrivas, aged about 20 years, Kumar Yadav, S/o Makhan Lal Yadav, aged about 36 years. All are residence of village Amora, P.S. Akaltara, Distrcit Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Versus ---- Appellants State of Chhattisgarh Through. – District Magistrate, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellants : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Afroj Khan, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (Judgment on Board) 04.08.2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.03.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in S.T. No.66/2006 2 convicting and sentencing the appellants as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 323/34 of IPC R.I. for 01 year Under Section 324/34 of IPC Under Section 307/34 of IPC R.I. for 02 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo additional R.I. for 03 months. R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo additional R.I. for 06 months. (all the sentences are directed to run concurrently) 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 15.03.2006, complainant Sukh Sagar and other villagers were going to the house of his brother Buturam to celebrate Holi. At the same time, Kumar Yadav (A-3) was going from there hurling abuses in the name of mother and sister, which was objected by Buturam. Thereafter, appellants with common intention came together, started abusing Buturam and Sanjay Kumar extending life threat, appellant Shiv Prasad (A-1) inflicted knife to Buturam in his abdomen, appellant Kumar Yadav (A-3) threw a bottle of liquor on Sanjay Kumar’s head and when Sukh Sagar tried to intervene the dispute, he too was assaulted by Sanjay Kumar (A-2) with knife, due to which the complainant party sustained injuries, the report (Ex.P-1) of which was immediately lodged by 3 Sukh Sagar (PW-1) at the police station, based on which, a crime was registered and injured Sukh Sagar (PW-1), Sanjay Kumar (PW-6) and Butu Ram (PW-5) were sent to Community Health Center, Akaltara, where they were examined by Dr. C.P. Singh (PW-7), who gave his report Ex.P-14 in respect of injured Sukh Sagar (PW-1), Ex.P-15 in respect of Butu Ram (PW-5), Ex.P-16 in respect of Sanjay Kumar (PW-6) and in query report (Ex.P-17), the doctor opined that if Butu Ram (PW-5) had not received immediate treatment, he could have died. Thereafter, Investigating Officer K.P. Mishra (PW-10) inspected the spot and prepared spot map (Ex.P.-7) and took appellants in custody and questioned them. Memorandum statement of appellant Shiv Prasad (A-1) was recorded vide Ex.P-3, and one razor (Ustara) was seized at his instance vide Ex.P-4. Memorandum statement of appellant Sanjay Kumar (A-2) was recorded vide Ex.P-5, and one knife was seized vide Ex.P-6. Thereafter, the appellants were arrested and arrest panchnama Ex.P-8 and P-9 were prepared. The towel worn by complainant Sukh Sagar (PW-1) at the time of incident was seized vide Ex.P-2 and from Butu Ram (PW-5) his sando vest was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. P- 13. After recording the statements of eye witnesses of the incident, appellant Kumar (A-3) was also arrested and after 4 getting the site map of the incident prepared by the Patwari, investigation was started and after completing the usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants.
Legal Reasoning
After filing of charge-sheet, the trial Court framed charges against the appellants under Sections 294, 506-B, 324/34, 323/34 and 307/34 of IPC, wherein they prayed for trial. 3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, while acquitting the appellants from the offence under Sections 294 and 506-B IPC, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and there is no direct evidence against the appellants to connect them with the crime in
Legal Reasoning
question. Learned counsel further submits that there was no motive or intention whatsoever on the part of the appellants to commit the offence under Section 307 IPC and in 5 absence of motive or intention, offence under such section cannot be made out. According to medical reports (Ex.P-14, P-15 and P-16), complainant Sukh Sagar (PW-1) sustained only one injury which was minor abrasion, injured Butu Ram (PW-5) received two simple injury one on stomach which was cut injury and other was incised wound in fingers and the injured Sanjay Kumar (PW-6) sustained two simple injury respectively, therefore, the offence under Section 307 of IPC could not be made out against the appellants. Learned counsel also submits that the conviction of the appellants is based on evidence of injured whose evidence do not inspire much confidence of this Court and not trustworthy being not corroborated by the independent witnesses. Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial Court did not consider the fact that the alleged incident had taken place on the day of Holi festival when complainant was under intoxicated condition and abused the appellants and their family members. Therefore, considering all the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the appeal may be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Alternative submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that if this Court finds and proves the guilt of the appellants, then the appellants may be sentenced to the 6 period already undergone by him as the appellants have already remained in jail for 08 months and 12 days, the incident took place in the year 2006 and thereby 19 years have rolled by since then and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them back to jail, therefore, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. In support of her submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment dated 11.02.2025 of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.660/2025 [SLP Criminal No. 3432/2023] in the matter of Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. . 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by learned counsel for the State that conviction of the appellants is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506- B, 324/34, 323/34 and 307/34 of IPC, and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellants from the offence under 7 Sections 294 & 506-B of IPC, convicted them under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 307/34 of IPC and sentenced as described in para 1 of this judgment. 9. It is clear from the statements of Sukh Sagar (PW-1), Raj Kumar (PW-2), Butu Ram Sahu (PW-5), Sanjay Kumar (PW-6), Sukh Sagar Singh (PW-8) and Sham Lal (PW-9) that on the date of incident, all the accused/appellants assaulted complainant Sukh Sagar (PW-1), Butu Ram Sahu (PW-5) and Sanjay Kumar (PW-6). The defence has cross- examined these witnesses at length but has not been able to elicit anything in their cross-examination to discredit their testimonies especially to the fact that the appellants have not assaulted the injured witnesses (PW-1 PW-5 & PW-6). They remained firm in their statement that the appellants have assaulted them. 10. Dr. C.P. Singh (PW-7) examined the victim/injured Sukh Sagar (PW-1), Butu Ram Sahu (PW-5) and Sanjay Kumar (PW-6) and gave his report under Ex.P-14, P-15 & P-16 opining that the injuries sustained by Sukh Sagar (PW-1), Sanjay Kumar (PW-6) were simple in nature and in respect of injuries sustained by Butu Ram Sahu (PW-5), the doctor has answered in query report (Ex.P-17) that if Butu Ram (PW-5) had not received immediate treatment, he could have died . 8 11. Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue where medical evidence given great corroborative value in Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh Vs. State of Bihar and connected matter reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 497 held in paras 18, 20, 21 and 22 as under :- “18. The evidentiary value of a medical witness is very crucial to corroborate the case of prosecution and it is not merely a check upon testimony of eyewitnesses, it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. It has been reiterated by this court that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value as it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged. In the case at hand, PW- 8, Dr. Himkar who examined the informant PW-6 has clearly stated that all the injuries attributed on the informant were caused by firearms and that tattooing may not appear over the wound (injured area) if a person fires from 6-7 ft . 19. xxxx 20. It is a well-know fact that the term “hurt” simply means performing an act which leads to physical pain, injury or any disease to a person. At times, hurt may be caused voluntarily or it can by caused by using dangerous weapons or mean. A 9 person will be liable to have caused hurt voluntarily through dangerous weapons and means under Section 324 IPC which reads as under :- “324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. – Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 21. To establish an offence under Sec 324 IPC, the presence of following ingredients is a must which are as follows :- 1. 2. a. Voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused, and Such hurt was caused : By any instrument used for shooting, cutting or stabbing, or any other 10 instrument likely to cause death, or By fire or other heated instruments, or By poison or other corrosive substance, or b. c. d. By any explosive substance, or e. By a substance that is the human or dangerous for body to swallow, inhale, receive through blood, or f. By an animal. 22. When a person commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and means under Section 324 of Indian penal Code, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of three years, or with fine. 12. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sivamani & Anr. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in 2023 SCConLine SC 1581 held in para 9 as under :- “9. 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 11 result, was done with the intention or 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. The learned trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 307 IPC on this ground that injury sustained by Butu Ram (PW-5) was dangerous to life but it is clear from the statement of Dr. C.P.Singh (PW-7) that he found three incised wounds on fingers and one incised wound on his stomach in the size of 28 x 2 cm x 2 cm & he referred injured Butu Ram to Surgical Specialist. The Doctor (PW-7), in para 11 of his cross-examination, has admitted that in his report (Ex.P-15) he did not mentioned the nature of injuries and in query report (Ex.P-17) he answered that if Butu Ram (PW-5) had not received immediate treatment, he could 12 have died. This witness has also admitted that all the incised wounds are not fatal. The prosecution in order to ascertain the gravity of injury sustained by injured Butu Ram (PW-5) had to examine the surgical specialist but the same has not been done in the case. 14. If the facts of the present case are looked into in view of the aforesaid verdict in Anuj (supra) and Sivamani (supra), it is clear from the aforesaid testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the injuries sustained by Butu Ram (PW-5) were dangerous to life. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of case, the nature and number of injuries coupled with the medical evidence and further considering the fact that there is nothing in the medical examination report of doctor that injuries sustained by the injured Butu Ram (PW-5) were fatal to life, it would not be safe to hold that the appellants caused injury to injured PW-5 in an attempt to commit his murder. However, the nature and number of injuries caused and the weapon used for causing such injury, it can safely be said that the accused/appellants had caused hurt to the injured persons with dangerous weapon knife making them liable to be convicted under Section 324 IPC. 15. During the pendency of instant appeal, the complainant and 13 appellants had filed an application under Section 320 (5) of the Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence. 16. It is an admitted position in this case that all the appellants have remained in jail for 08 months and 2 days and the appeal is pending since 2007 and more than 18 years have rolled on since then, however, the complainant did not appear for recording their statements in order to arrive at compromise but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellants have been facing the agony of their act since 2006 and appellant Shiv Prasad (A-1), Sanjay Kumar (A-2) and Kumar Yadav (A-3) at the time of incident were aged around 52, 20 and 36 years respectively, and by now they are aged about 70, 38 and 54 years, this Court is of the considered opinion that it will be in the interest of justice to sentence them to the period already undergone by him. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 IPC is altered to Section 324/34 IPC. The conviction of the appellants relating to injuries of Sukh Sagar (PW-1) and Sanjay Kumar (PW-6) under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 of IPC are hereby maintained and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 18. The appellants are already on bail. Keeping in view of the 14 provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 19. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Digitally signed by VIJAY pekde BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2025.08.06 17:19:50 +0530