Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 139 of 2008 Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Deosharan Singh Gond, aged about 27 years, Cultivate, R/o Village Tengni, Police Station Patna, Distt. Korea (Chhattisgarh). versus ... Appellant State Of Chhattisgarh through S.O. Police Station Patna District Korea (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Appellant : None. For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 21/04/2025 The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.1.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Koriya (Baikunthpur) in ST No.41/2006 whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 01 year and pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 02 months. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.9.2005 when complainant/victim Uddyan Singh (PW-1) was at his house, two persons came to him and told that he (PW-1) has been called by Sant Singh. While he 2 was going on foot towards the house of Sant Singh, on the way the accused persons Premshankar, Nasrulla @ Ranga and Naresh Kumar intercepted him, abused him filthily, threatened him of life and thereafter, accused Naresh Kumar assaulted him with knife on his neck. However, on hue and cry being raised by him, PW-4 Chhatrapal and PW-6 Vanshroop reached the place of occurrence and seeing them the accused persons fled from there. The complainant lodged FIR on the same day against the accused persons vide Ex.P/1. He was got medically examined by Dr. AK Sharma (PW-5) vide report Ex.P/6. Spot maps were prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused persons before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate under Sections 341, 294, 506, 307, 34 of IPC. 03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 307/34, 294, 341/34 of IPC against accused Premshankar and Nasrulla whereas accused Naresh Kumar was charged under Sections 307, 294, 341/34 of IPC. The accused persons abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 09 witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment acquitted accused Premshankar and Nasrulla of all the charges and convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 3 06. Pursuant to the order dated 25.3.2025 whereby non-bailable warrant was issued against the appellant for his production before this Court today, the appellant appears through video conferencing with the aid of District Legal Services Authority, Koriya. He is not pressing this appeal insofar as it relates to his conviction under Section 324 of IPC, however, submits that he has remained in jail for about a month, he was on bail during trial as also during pendency of this appeal and never misused the liberty granted to him, therefore, his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. 07. 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. 08. Heard the appellant and the State counsel and perused the material available on record. 09. Though the appellant filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court. However, at this juncture, the appellant is not pressing this appeal in relation to his conviction and is praying for reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone by him. While dealing with such situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jeetu @ Jitendra and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 11 SCC 489 held as under: “When a convicted person prefers an appeal, he has the legitimate expectation to be dealt with by the Courts in accordance with law. That apart, he has intrinsic faith in the 4 criminal justice dispensation system and it is the sacred duty of the adjudicatory system to remain alive to the said faith. He has embedded trust in his counsel that he shall put forth his case to the best of his ability assailing the conviction and to do full justice to the case. That apart, a counsel is expected to assist the Courts in reaching a correct conclusion. Therefore, it is the obligation of the Court to decide the appeal on merits and not accept the concession and proceed to deal with the sentence, for the said mode and method defeats the fundamental purpose of the justice delivery system. We are compelled to note here that we have come across many cases where the High Courts, after recording the non- challenge to the conviction, have proceeded to dwell upon the proportionality of the quantum of sentence. We may clearly state that the same being impermissible in law should not be taken resort to. It should be borne in mind that a convict who has been imposed substantive sentence is deprived of his liberty, the stem of life that should not ordinarily be stenosed, and hence, it is the duty of the Court to see that the cause of justice is subserved with serenity in accordance with the established principles of law.” 10. Bearing in mind the aforesaid settled principle of law, this Court proceeds to decide the appeal on merits. 11. There were total three accused persons who were put to trial. Accused Premshankar and Nasrulla were charged under Sections 307/34, 294, 341/34 of IPC whereas accused Naresh Kumar was charged under Sections 307, 294, 341/34 of IPC. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted accused Premshankar and Nasrulla of all the charges and while acquitting accused/appellant Naresh Kumar of the charges leveled against him, held him guilty under Section 324 5 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 01 year, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 02 months. 12. As regards conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 324 of IPC, Uddyan Singh (PW-1), who is the complainant/victim, has categorically stated in his deposition that on the date of incident while he was going towards the house of Sant Singh afoot, the accused/appellant along with other co-accused waylaid him and accused Naresh assaulted him with a knife on his neck. When the complainant raised alarm, Banshroop and Chhatrapal came to his rescue and thereafter the accused persons fled from the spot. He proved the fact that he lodged the FIR (Ex.P/1) which bears his signature from A to A part. In cross-examination he denied all the adverse suggestions of the defence and remained firm on his statement that the accused Naresh inflicted knife injury on him. 13. PW-2 Rambai and PW-3 Ratan Singh have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. PW-4 Chhatrpal and PW-6 Banshroop are though not eyewitnesses to the incident but they stated that hearing the scream of Uddyan Singh they reached the place of occurrence, saw him lying in injured condition and he narrated the incident to them. The version of the complainant also finds due corroboration from the medical evidence of PW-5 Dr. AK Sharma who examined him on 10.9.2005 and noticed an incised wound on his neck of size 2 ½ x ½ x ½ inch. In his opinion, the said injury was caused by hard and sharp object within 08 hours of examination. He has proved his medical report of Ex.P/6. 14. In view of the unrebutted evidence of the complainant/victim which finds support from the promptly lodged FIR, the evidence of PW-4 Chhatrapal, PW-6 Banshroop and PW-5 Dr. AK Sharma, who noticed 6 corresponding injury on the neck of the victim, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial Court was fully justified in holding that it is the accused/appellant who voluntarily caused injury by a dangerous weapons knife on the neck of the victim and convicting him under Section 324 of IPC. Therefore, the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial court is hereby affirmed. 15. So far as sentence part of the accused/appellant is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the incident took place; he has no criminal record; he remained in jail for about a month, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping him behind the bars any longer and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone while keeping the fine amount imposed on him with default sentence by trial Court intact. 16.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC, his substantive jail sentence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed on him by learned trial Court with default sentence shall remain intact. He is reported to be in jail pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued by this Court vide order dated 25.3.2025, therefore, he be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. However, in view of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023, he shall execute a bail bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- to ensure his appearance before the higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against this judgment and such bond shall be in force for six months. MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.04.24 10:20:43 +0530 Khan Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge