Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18618 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 571 of 2009 Manohar Gond S/o Raghunandan Gond @ Shivnandan, aged about 35 years, R/o Kuppa, PS Odgi, Distt. Surguja (CG) versus ... Appellant State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Surguja, Police Station – Odgi, Distt. Sarguja (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate. For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 24/04/2025 The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.6.2009 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG) in ST No.332/2008 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 307 of Indian Penal RI for 10 years, pay a fine of Code. Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 03 months. Under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms RI for 01 year, pay a fine of Act. Rs.500/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 01 month. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 22.9.2008 at around 7 am while the complainant Bhaiyram Gond was ploughing the government land situated at the west side of his house, at that time his cousin i.e. accused/appellant Manohar on account of there being some land dispute reached there armed with a sword and with intention to commit his murder assaulted with sword on his neck. However, as the complainant ducked down, the sword hit dorsum region of left foot. He also suffered injury over left leg and toe as also on the palmer aspect of left hand. Hearing the screams of the complainant, his wife Fuleshwari and daughter Geeta came and separated them. After the incident Ramlakhan Singh and Surendra Dev Singh also reached the spot and the complainant narrated the incident to them. The complainant was taken to hospital for treatment. On the basis of report to the above effect, offence under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the accused at Police Station – Odgi, Distt. Surguja. 03. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded, bloodstained and plain soil 3 as also plastic slippers of the complainant were seized from the place of occurrence. Memorandum of the accused was recorded which led to recovery of bloodstained sword. The seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused persons before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 04. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act against accused which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. 05. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced in defence. 06. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 07. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the contradiction and omission in the 4 statements of the prosecution witnesses. It has also not appreciated the fact that PW-2 Fuleshwari, PW-3 Geeta and PW-4 Ramlakhan are interested witnesses in this case and as such, their evidence has to be evaluated with great care and caution. It has come in the evidence that due to some land dispute between the parties, the complainant was having animosity against accused and his family. Even otherwise, looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant and the manner in which the incident took place, the accused/appellant’s conviction under Section 307 of IPC is not sustainable and at the most, he can be held guilty under Section 325 of IPC and in view of the fact that he has remained in jail for more than 2 years and 8 months, he was on bail during pendency of this appeal and did not misuse the liberty, his jail sentence thereunder may be reduced to the period already undergone. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Subhash Chander Bansal Vs. Gian Chand and others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 291. 08. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 5 09. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that appellant was charged under Section 307 of IPC and 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act for attempting to commit murder of the complainant Bhaiyalal by inflicting injury with a sword, and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him under the aforesaid sections as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 11. PW-1 Bhaiyram states that on the date of incident while he was ploughing the field, the accused/appellant came there with sword and assaulted on him which hit his left dorsum region of the foot as he ducked down to save his neck. 12. PW-2 Fuleshwari, PW-3 Geeta and PW-4 Ramlakhan Singh have supported the statement of the complainant and stated that it is the accused/appellant who assaulted on the complainant with sword. PW-5 Surendra Dev also states that hearing the cries of the complainant and his wife, he rushed to the spot and saw that the complainant was lying on the ground with injury in his leg and the accused was running towards his house. 13. PW-10 Dr. SN Kujur medically examined the complainant Bhaiyaram on 22.9.2008 and found five incised wounds on anterior lateral aspect of left foot extending upto planter region, middle of left 6 clavicle, palmer aspect of left middle finger and middle part, palmer aspect of left ring finger and root of left little finger. He states that injury No.1 is grievous in nature whereas other injuries are simple in nature. He also advised for x-ray of left foot. His medical report is Ex.P/10. He also examined the weapon of offence seized from the accused and opined that the injuries suffered by the victim could be caused by this weapon vide Ex.P/12. 14. PW-11 Dr. JK Bhutani states that upon x-ray being done he found that 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal bones of left foot were fractured vide Ex.P/13. In cross-examination he states that he did not notice any fracture on the shoulder, therefore, did not mention about examination of the shoulder in his report. 15. In view of the aforesaid unrebutted ocular and medical evidence it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused/appellant who assaulted on the complainant with a sword which hit his left foot and palmer region and he suffered injuries as mentioned above. As per PW-10 Dr. SN Kujur only injury No.1 was grievous in nature and PW-11 Dr. JK Bhutani also found that 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal bones of left foot were fractured. Thus, looking to the manner in which the incident took place, the weapon used in making assault, the nature and extent of injuries suffered by the complainant, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court was not justified in holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 307 of IPC and 7 the act committed by him makes him liable for conviction under Section 326 of IPC. Being so, conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC deserves to be altered to Section 326 of IPC. However, looking to the evidence of the memorandum and seizure witnesses namely PW-4 Ramlakhan Singh and PW-5 Surendra Dev coupled with the evidence of Investigating Officer RN Yadav (PW-13) and size of the weapon used by the accused without any licence; this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in his conviction under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act recorded by the learned trial Court. 16. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the incident took place in the year 2008, at the time of incident the accused was 35 years of age and at present must be of 52 years; he was on bail during pendency of this appeal and never misused the liberty granted to him; he has remained in jail for more than 2 years and 8 months, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail at this stage and ends of justice would be met if he is sentenced under Section 326 of IPC to the period already undergone by him and directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with default sentence of 02 months’ RI. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act , his conviction under Section 307 of IPC is altered to Section 8 326 of IPC and he is awarded jail sentence thereunder to the period already undergone by him. He shall also pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof shall suffer additional RI for two months. The fine amount, if any, deposited under Section 307 of IPC shall be adjusted accordingly. He is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall continue for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.04.26 10:19:48 +0530 MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Khan Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge