High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 CRA No.173/2016 2025:CGHC:37625 NAFR AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.05 10:50:38 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 173 of 2016 1 - Munna Lal And Others S/o Ramsundar Aged About 35 Years Occupation - Labour, R/o Village - Ramnagar, Police Station - Basantpur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujgunj, Civil District - Surguja And Revenue District - Balrampur, Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2 - Babulal S/o Birjhu Agariya Aged About 22 Years Occupation - Labour, R/o Village - Ramnagar, Police Station - Basantpur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujgunj, Civil District - Surguja And Revenue District - Balrampur, Chhattisgarh , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Anil S/o Nandkeshwar Agariya Aged About 24 Years Occupation - Labour, R/o Village - Ramnagar, Police Station - Basantpur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujgunj, Civil District - Surguja And Revenue District - Balrampur, Chhattisgarh , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellants The State of Chhattisgarh Throguh Police Station - Basantpur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujgunj Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Decision
Order on Board 2 CRA No.173/2016 31.07.2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 21/01/2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ramanujganj of Additional Judge, Ramanujgang, District:Surguja(Ambikapur), C.G. in S.T. No.36/2014, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as Under:- Appellant No.1 (A-1) : Munna Lal Conviction Sentence U/s 294 of IPC R.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, additional R.I. for 1 month U/s 307 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, additional R.I. for 2 months Appellant No.2 (A-2) : Babulal Appellant No.3 (A-3) : Anil Conviction Sentence U/s 294 of IPC R.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, additional R.I. for 1 month each U/s 307/34 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, additional R.I. for 2 months each For the sake of convenience, the appellants herein would be referred as per their status before the trial Court. 3 CRA No.173/2016 2. Case of the prosecution, is that there is a land dispute between A-1 and the family of complainant Kailash (PW-1). On 01.01.2014 at 08:00 p.m., the appellants went in front of the house of Ishwar/PW-3 (injured), cousin brother of Kailash and started abusing him by using filthy language and were challenging him to come out from the house. Then, Ishwar came out of the house, at the same time, A-1 assaulted on the neck of Ishwar by means of axe with intention to kill him, due to which, Ishwar fell on the ground. Thereafter, A-1 again assaulted Ishwar with an axe on his neck below both the ears. On hearing the voice of Ishwar, when his wife Rajkumari (PW-4) and Jayamangal came out of the house, the appellants fled away from the spot. Subsequently, the injured/Ishwar was taken to Wadrafnagar hospital for treatment. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-2 and FIR was registered vide Ex.P-12. The appellants were arrested vide Ex.P-16 to P-18. On the basis of memorandum statement of A-1, an axe was recovered and seized vide Ex.P-15 and after due investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellants. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. 4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and 4 CRA No.173/2016 documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellants herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellants-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. There is no eyewitness in the crime in question. The entire case of prosecution is based upon the statement of the interested witnesses, who are family members of complainant and the prosecution has not proved the case against the appellants beyond all the reasonable doubts. He would submit that the statements of all the prosecution witnesses are full of contradiction and omissions, hence, no implicit reliance could be placed on such kind of testimony. The testimony of prosecution witnesses could not be relied upon in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the alleged offence is not made out against the appellants and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 6. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that 5 CRA No.173/2016 the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. Now the question would be whether the accused-appellants herein are the author of the crime in question ? 9. PW-1 Kailash, complainant stated in his evidence that on the date of incident at 8:00 p.m., Rajkumari, wife of Ishwar/injured was shouting, then he went to the house of Ishwar and saw that he was lying down, there were wounds on both sides of his neck. There was an injury from which blood was oozing out. His sister- in-law Rajkumari and Jayamangal were present there. 10.PW-3 Ishwar (injured), stated in his evidence that on the date of incident at 8:00 p.m., he came out of his house for nature’s call near roadside, at that time, the A-1 assaulted him with an axe below his both the ears and also on his neck. A-2 and A-3 were also present on the spot and instigated A-1 to assault and kill him. He further stated in his evidence that the appellants were abusing him in filthy language. Thereafter, his wife Rajkumari (PW-4) intervened the matter. He stated that there is a previous animosity with the appellants and due to which, the appellants assaulted 6 CRA No.173/2016 him. 11.PW-4 Rajkumari, wife of injured Ishwar stated in her evidence that she knows the appellants. On the date of incident at 8 p.m., she along with her husband both came out of the house for nature’s call. At that time, A-1 assaulted her husband by means of axe on his neck and below his ears. A-2 and A-3 were also present on the spot and instigated A-1 to beat and kill her husband. Thereafter, she raised alarm and then Kailash and Jayamangal came to the spot. The appellants fled from the spot. She further stated that due to previous animosity regarding the land dispute, the appellants assaulted her husband. 12.PW-8 Doctor Govind Singh, who conducted the medical examination of injured and submitted a report vide Ex.P-5, in which, he found the following injuries sustained by the injured- Ishwar:- A sharp cut injury in horizontal position just below left ear, narrow at upper end and narrow at lower end, edges of injury were uniform and spread outwards, size 10 cm long x 2 cm wide x 3.5 cm deep. The skin, flesh and blood vessels were cut. The sternocleidomastoid was also cut, the injury was of equal length on both sides below the ear, the T-shirt worn was soaked with blood. A sharp cut injury was present on left side horizontally, 7 CRA No.173/2016 running from below and behind right ear to front of neck, size of injury was 10 cm long x 02 cm wide x 3.5 cm deep, bleeding had occurred from there and spread over face and clothes, edge of injury was uniform and spread outwards and was narrow at both ends, skin, flesh and blood vessel were cut and jaw bone also appeared to be cut, there was severe pain due to nerve cut, condition of injury was quite unusual. Doctor (PW8) has further stated that the injury sustained to the injured was caused by a sharp-edged weapon. 13.From bare perusal of aforesaid evidence, it is manifest that due to previous animosity regarding the land dispute, A-1 along with A-2 and A-3 went to the house of the injured and on the date of incident about 8 p.m. when, the injured/Ishwar came out of the house for nature’s call, the A-1 with intention to kill him, assaulted him with an axe on his neck, below the ears. At that time, Rajkumari PW-4, wife of injured was present on the spot and seen the incident, where A-2 and A-3 provoked A-1 to beat and kill the injured/Ishwar. The appellants also abusing the injured/Ishwar in filthy language. In the present case, Rajakumari PW-4, wife of injured is the eyewitness, who was present on the spot and has seen the incident. 14.As per the medical report vide Ex.P-5, submitted by Doctor PW-8, the injuries sustained by the injured were grievous in nature and 8 CRA No.173/2016 caused by sharp-edged weapon i.e. axe, which has been recovered and seized vide Ex.P-15 on the basis of memorandum statement of A-1. 15.As far as the conviction of the A-1 Munna Lal under Section 294 of IPC and 307 of the IPC is concerned, A-1 along with A-2 and A-3, reached the house of the injured/Ishwar and because of previous animosity between A-1 & injured regarding the land dispute, when injured came out of the house for nature’s call, A-1 assaulted the injured/Ishwar by means of axe on his neck and below his ears, and also abused him in filthy language. On hearing the voice, Rajkumari, wife of injured came and intervened the matter, thereafter, complainant/Kailash came to the spot, at that time,the appellants have been fled away from there. After taking custody to the A-1, on the basis of his memorandum, an axe was seized vide Ex.P-15. Thus, the conviction and sentence imposed upon A-1 Munna lal under Sections 307 & 294 of the IPC is just and proper and accordingly the same is maintained. 16. In so far as the conviction of A-2 Babulal and A-3 Anil under Section 294 of IPC and 307/34 of IPC is concerned, they are present on the spot on the date of incident along with A-1 and alleged that they instigated A-1 to beat and kill the injured/Ishwar. However, no weapon was seized from them and they were only present on the spot. Even there is no single evidence elicited by the prosecution that these accused persons assaulted the injured. 9 CRA No.173/2016 17.It is also to be seen that the incident took place around 11 years ago, the age of A-2 & A-3 at the relevant time was around 22 & 24 years, respectively; during pendency of this appeal they were on bail since 2016; and did not misuse the liberty granted to him and keeping in view the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagajet, (2009) 13 SCC 478, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending A-2 & A-3 back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served, if the A-2 & A-3 are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 18. For the foregoing reasons, The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court upon A-1 Munna Lal is hereby maintained. Accordingly, the appeal filed in his respect is dismissed. He is reported to be on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties discharged. He shall surrender forthwith before the concerned trial Court forthwith serving remaining sentence as awarded by the trial Court, failing which he shall be taken into custody by the trial Court. The sentence already undergone by A-2 Babulal and A-3 Anil is sufficient and adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case. The conviction is maintained, however, the quantum of sentence 10 CRA No.173/2016 awarded to A-2 & A-3 is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 3 months. Whereas, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal filed in respect of A-2 & A-3 is hereby allowed in part. A-2 & A-3 are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 19. 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep