Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Piparchhedi, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8709 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 109 of 2025 1 - Charan Singh Sori S/o Paltan Sori, Aged About 35 Year, Resident Of Village Unda Para, Police Station Piparchhedi, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Piparchhedi, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent ... Appellant For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 19/02/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 415 of the BNSS against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14/11/2024 passed by the learned Upper Sessions Judge, Gariyaband (C.G.) in Session Trial No.17/2022 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo the appellant for seven years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine further undergo six month RI. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 06.01.2022 the complainant Paltan Singh Sori son of Budhram Sori, has made oral complaint to the concerned police station Piparchhedi with intend that on 06.01.2022 at about 6.00 O'clock at evening there was some family dispute in NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.03.24 11:28:22 +0530 2 between the appellant and his wife Karima Bai and thereafter, the appellant assaulted upon his wife Karima Bai by bow and arrow, as resultantly his wife Karima Bai was received injuries on her breast and she was admitted in the hospital. Based upon the such oral report, concerned police station has registered the first information report as Crime No.01/2022 for the offence punishable under section 294, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 3. After the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed in the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.), from where the case has committed for trial in learned Upper Sessions Judge Gariyaband (C.G.) where the trial of the case has been commenced in Sessions Trial No. 17/2022. 4. During the trial, the prosecution has produced as many as 07 witnesses for supporting of the case of the prosecution. The appellant has denied the charge leveled against him under section 313 of Cr.P.C. on the plea of innocence and he has not produced any witness for his defense. 5. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and framing issues, vide its impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.11.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No.17/2022 convicted the appellant and sentence as mentioned above, which is not just and proper in the eye of law, hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that at the time of incident, appellant and his wife Karima Bai @ Karma Bai both of them were received injuries by arrow as resultant injury has found on stomach of the appellant and both of them admitted in the hospital, 3 which is clearly shows that the appellant has neither committed any aforesaid offences. He further submits that the learned trial Court has been acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 294, 506 Part-II of IPC. He also submits that appellant and injured lady who is his wife and only on the basis of family dispute regarding money, the appellant has no intention to commit the said act. He further submits that prosecution witnesses have given contradictory statements. He also submits that there is no eye witness in the present case. Hence, appellants may be acquitted of the aforesaid charge. 7. Counsel for the State argued that the order passed by the learned trial Court is well merited, which do not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties with utmost circumspection. 9. It is an admitted fact that at the time of incident the appellant Charan Singh Sori and his wife Karima Bai @ Karma Bai both of them were received injuries by arrow as resultantly injury has found on stomach of the appellant and injury has been found on the chest of the Karima Bai and appellant and Karima Bai both of them admitted in the hospital. Prosecution did not disclosed the fact that how appellant has caused injury by arrow on his stomach. It is also pertinent to mention here that victim is wife of the appellant and she has admitted in cross- examination “ स्वतः कथन किकया किक तीर धोखे से लग गया था" therefore, there is no intention of the appellant to kill his wife. 10. Section 307 of IPC attempt to murder provides as under “Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be 4 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.” The record shows that the appellant has no intention to kill his wife. The record also shows that appellant trying to kill the animal by arrow in that time wife of the appellant i.e. Karima Bai @ Karma Bai received injuries by arrow. It is also well established principle of law that the question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in term of Section 307 of IPC is a question of fact and not one of law and it would all details on the facts of the given case. In this case there is no intention and there is no knowledge to act was done to cause death to the wife of the appellant. Therefore, case is not for under Section 307 of IPC, however, case is fall under Section 308 of IPC, therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is set-aside and instead of 307 the conviction under Section 308 of IPC for attempt to commit culpable homicide. Appellant is in jail since 12/01/2022. Till date almost 3 years have passed. Under the circumstances and facts of the case, in my opinion, no useful purpose is going to be served in jail. Accordingly, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. Appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde