Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2025:CGHC:27446 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1120 of 2007 Shyamlal S/o Jagulal Teli, aged about 45 years, R/o village Tutikona, P.S. Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station P.S. Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Vikram Pratap, on behalf of Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 24.06.2025. 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.11.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mahasamund District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No. 26/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- 2 Conviction Sentence U/S 326 of I.P.C. R.I. for 02 years with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 06 months. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on the date of incident i.e., on 16.02.2007 at about 11.00 am the appellant and the complainant were working in their respective fields. The accused/appellant’s field is next to the filed of the complainant. The appellant and his son were ploughing the field together and were also placing stones between the fields, digging up complainant’s field’s land. On being noticing their act, the complainant said, don’t keep putting stones on my field’s land. The appellant and his son got infuriated and abused the complainant by using filthy language and threatened him for life and the appellantt went to take tangia which was there in his field and then came running towards the complainant and assaulted him with tangia, then the complainant tried to stop him and the appellant’s left hand finger near the little finger got hurt and blood was gushing forth from it. The son of the complainant Om Prakash intervened in between the apellant and the complainant, complainant’s father Reshamlal has also witnessed the incident. On the basis of the F.I.R. vide Ex. P/03 filed by the complainant against the appellant in Police Station Saraipalli, District Mahasamund offence was registered under Sections 294, 506 (II), 324/34 of IPC and under Sections 3 (i) (x) and 3 (ii) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the investigation was started. 3. During investigation, the complainant was medically examined, 3 statements of the witnesses were recorded and the caste certificate of the complainant was seized and the injury sustained by the complainant was found to be caused by sharp object of serious nature. After completion of due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appelalnt under Sections 294.506,324/34, 325 of IPC and under Sections 3 (i) (x) and 3 (ii) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund and the case was committed to the learned Special Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) under Sections 294, 506(II) and 326 of IPC and Sections 3 (I) (x) & 3 (ii) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 08 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the inculpatory circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, he adduced only 01 witness in his defence. 5. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law, which is liable to be set aside. The learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under 4 Section 326 of IPC as there is no material or evidence available on record to connect the appellant in the said offence. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate this fact that the prosecution has not recorded the statement of independent eye witnesses (Raj Bhadur and Punau). The learned trial Court has committed error in convicting the appelant only on the statements of the complainant and his son, who are interested witnesses. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the statements of the defence witness (Dadulal). As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that the incident took place in the year 2007, this appeal is pending since 2007, at the time of the incident, the appellant was aged about 45 years, now he is senior citizen, i.e., aged more than 60 years; he has remained in jail for 06 days, he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him while being on bail, so in the interest of justice the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the accused/appellant, so this appeal is being devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 5 9. It is clear from record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 294, 506 (II), 326 of IPC and under Sections 3 (i) (x) and 3 (ii) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence in the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant under Sections 294 & 506(II) of IPC and under Sections 3 (i) (x) and 3 (ii) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but convicted him under Section 326 of IPC and the same is mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 10. Complainant Hem Prasad (PW/02) stated that on the date of incident the accused assaulted him by Tangi so his index finger got injured and he lodged F.I.R. vide Ex. P/03. (PW/03) supported the statement of the complainant. Dr. A.K. Sahu (PW/08) examined the complainant and found 02 injuries and as per Ex. P/06 the tip of ring finger was injured and per X-Ray report he found proximal phalanx was broken and gave his repoort vide Ex. P/06. So, the statement of complainant is supported by Dr. A.K. Sahu (PW/08), The learned trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and rightly convicted the appellant under Section 326 of IPC. As such, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. However, the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of IPC is hereby maintained. 11. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 6 2007 and this appeal is pending since 2007. The appellant is now senior citizen, aged more than 60 years; and he has remained in jail for 06 days, he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail, thus considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2007 and the total detention period of the accused/appellant, this Court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him under Section 326 of IPC. 12. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of IPC and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 13. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of 06 months from today, in view of provisions laid down under Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 14. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge U. K. Raju