Nafr High Court
Case Details
SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 1 2025:CGHC:46404 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 16 of 2017 1. Prahlad Sahu S/o Lachchhan Sahu, Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Nariyara, Police Station- Hasaud, Tahsil- Jaijaipur, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Hasaud, District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. N.K. Chaterjee, Advocate along with applicant and the complainant. For Non-applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. K.K. Baharani, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 10.09.2025 1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘CrPC’) is filed against the judgment dated 20.12.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.184/2015 thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.10.2015 passed in Criminal Case No.256/2019 by which learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jaijaipur convicted the applicant for commission of offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal 2 Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo RI for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo additional SI for 01 month. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, on 30.7.2009 at about 18:00 hrs when complainant Chandrakant Sahu was going towards his house, at that time co-accused Samaru, who was armed with club, met him and seeing him, he started abusing him, threatened him for life and dragged him near the house of Akti where Lalit, Chandramnai and others intervened then accused Samaru gave lathi blow to Lalit, whereas accused/applicant, who was holding axe, gave axe blow to Lalit, which he stopped from his hands and therefore, suffered injuries in both hands. Report of incident was lodged in concerned police station based upon which crime bearing No.214/2009 was registered against accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Section 294, 506, 323, 34 of IPC. 3. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet before the Court concerned and charges were framed against accused persons for aforementioned sections. Accused persons denied the charges and claim to be tried. In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and got marked 18 documents. After closing of the evidence of prosecution, statement of accused persons 3 under Section 313 CrPC was recorded. Learned trial Court while acquitting the applicant from the charges under Section 294, 506B, 323 (three times) and 342 of IPC, found him guilty of the offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced him in the manner as stated in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. Criminal appeal preferred by applicant was also dismissed vide impugned judgment. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant and complainant are resident of same village, incident occurred out of a sudden quarrel, it was not premeditated and applicant did not act in cruel or unusual manner and therefore the offence under Section 326 of IPC is not made out. He submits tha applicant and injured victim have entered into a compromise and an application duly signed by the complainant has already been filed. The dispute was purely personal in nature, arising out of sudden quarrel, and that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the conviction when the complainant has settled the matter. He submits that looking to present age of applicant i.e. 72 years, coupled with the fact that complainant, who is the sole victim, has forgiven applicant by entering into settlement, he prays for consideration of compromise and acquittal of applicant. In alternative, it is submitted that if this Court is not convinced to acquit the appellant, then considering the fact that applicant is 4 facing agony of trial, criminal appeal and criminal revision since 2009 i.e. for a period of near about 16 years, and the parties have entered into settlement, his sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in jail. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for applicant and supported the impugned judgment. He further submits that the applicant voluntarily caused injuries to complainant and medical evidence makes it clear that injuries sustained by complainant is by assault from sharp edged weapon. Testimony of injured has been corroborated by the statement of eyewitness present on the spot and statements of doctor who medically examined the injured. The prosecution successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident, applicant caused grievous injury on the hand of the injured and he has been rightly convicted by the trial court, which does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. He further submits that offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is not compoundable. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 5 7. So far as the compromise application is concerned, it is well settled that offence under Section 326 of IPC under which applicant has been convicted and sentenced, is non- compoundable, application is filed after judgment of trial Court and therefore, prayer for acquittal based on compromise application cannot be accepted. However, the effect of compromise may be considered while considering the question of sentence. 8. From perusal of the record of Courts below, this Court finds that learned trial Court convicted the applicant for commission of offence under Section 326 of IPC for voluntarily causing injuries to injured Lalit by means of axe, relying on the testimonies of injured Lalit (PW-1), who has received injuries for which he was referred to Community Health Centre, Jaijaipur where he was given treatment, Dr. M. Kashyap (PW-2), who treated injured, and other prosecution witnesses who were present on the spot and were examined. Therefore, I would like to discuss as to whether the prosecution witnesses of fact were rightly believed or not by the trial court. 9. Lalit (PW-2) has stated on the date of incident, when he was in his agriculture field, his brother Premlal, Chhotelal and Babulal came and told that accused persons are assaulting complainant, whereupon he reached the spot, seeing him 6 accused persons started threatening and abusing him filthily, applicant herein assaulted him by means of axe which he stopped from his hands as a result sustained injuries on both his hands, if he would had not stopped the axe from his hands, the blow may have landed on his head. 10. Chandrakant (PW-1), an injured witness, has fully supported the version of Lalit (PW-2) by stating that on the date of incident, when accused persons were assaulting him, when he came to intervene, accused Prahlad picked up axe to assault him, however, in order to save him, he pushed Prahlad and stopped the axe blow from his hands in which received injuries. 11. Bhadramani Sahu (PW-3), Babulal (PW-3), Manharan Sahu (PW-5), Puniram Sahu (PW-6), Rukhman (PW-7), Pitambar (PW-8), Premlal (PW-9), who were also present on the spot, have also vividly described the incident and participation of accused persons in the incident as described by PW-1 and PW-2. The aforementioned witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examinations, however, the learned defence counsel could not elicit anything which could shatter the credibility of these witnesses in any manner. 12. Perusal of injury report of Lalit (PW-2) shows that Injury No.1 is a incised would of the size 1”x ½” x ½” over left index finger at the base of index finger and middle finger. Injury 7 No.2 is the incised wound of the size ½” x ½ x½” over right ring finger extent from ring finger to middle finger. 13. Dr. M. Kashyap (PW-12) who medically examined Lalit (PW-2), has deposed that on being produced by Constable, he examined injured Lalit and noticed one incised wound in the middle of left middle and ring finger, blood was coming out and size was 1” x ½ “ and ½” deep, which was caused by hard and sharp edged weapon. The doctor also noticed fracture injury on left second meta facial joint and 5th meta carpel joint; incised wound on right ring and middle finger. 14. It is settled position that testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law and such witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Therefore, the evidence of the injured witness has to be relied upon unless there are convincing grounds for the rejection of his evidence. 15. As discussed above, the evidence of Chandrakant (PW-1), Lalit (PW-2), Bhadramani Sahu (PW-3), Babulal (PW-3), Manharan Sahu (PW-5), Puniram Sahu (PW-6), Rukhman (PW-7), Pitambar (PW-8), Premlal (PW-9) is supportive to each other insofar as role played by the applicant. Their evidence shows that they substantiated version of injured Lalit (PW-2). Quality of their evidence shows that they are 8 witnesses to the truth. Testimonies of injured and aforesaid eyewitnesses further gets support from the medical evidence, according to which, the injuries were caused by hard and sharp edged weapon. Injured and other eyewitnesses to the incident were subjected to extensive cross-examination but the defence failed to elicit anything worth, which could possibly cause any dent in their testimony so far as the complicity of appellants is concerned. Thus, this Court is of the view that the evidence produced by the prosecution clearly establishes complicity of accused/applicant in the crime in question beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, learned trial Court has rightly believed the testimonies of prosecution witnesses to establish complicity of applicant in instant crime. 16. As regards the quantum of sentence, incident took place more than 16 years ago; it was first offence of applicant, the applicant and complainant are residents of one and same village, the complainant has entered into compromise and has further no objection to acquit the applicant of the charge or reduce the sentence suitably as deemed fit by this Court; applicant is presently age of applicant is about 71 years, he has been facing agony of trial and criminal case against him for about 16 years. Applicant has already served jail 9 sentence of six days during trial and about 18 days after judgment of conviction by appellate Court. 17. Considering totality of facts and circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the applicant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 18. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of applicant under Section 326 of IPC, the sentence of RI for 1 year imposed upon him is reduced to the period of detention already undergone by him. Applicant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond stands discharged. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-