And Rev. Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Chaal Distt. Raigarh Chh
Case Details
1 CRA No. 486 of 2016 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.05 11:10:23 +0530 2025:CGHC:38144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 486 of 2016 Dhanesh Ram Rathiya S/o Shri Shivprasad Rathiya Aged About 45 Years Caste Kanwar Occupation Farmer R/o. Village - Rilo, Thana - Chaal, Tahsil - Dharamjaygarh, Civil And Rev. Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Chaal Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajendra Patel, on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 01/08/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence 2 CRA No. 486 of 2016 dated 31.03.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 66/2011 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, C.G, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of the IPC R.I. for 7 years & fine of Rs. 500/- in default of fine additional R.I. for 2 months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on the date of incident 04.04.2011, the victim/ Mohanlal Gabel went to Sarpanch Janak Ram to discuss about the electric pump connection. After discussing when he was returning to his house with Sukh Singh and Vidya Singh Rathia, at around 9:30 pm, as soon as he reached between Raipara and Fittingpara, the accused Dhaneshram Rathia attacked the victim with a tangia and caused serious injury near the jaw of the applicant due to a dispute over the electric pump connection and thereafter report was lodged. 3. During investigation, Spot map was prepared. Statement of the Victim was recorded. Statements of witnesses were also recorded. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. 4. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 3 CRA No. 486 of 2016 11 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 31.03.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He also submits that one of the eyewitness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. He would further submit that while passing the impugned judgment the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He further prayed that the appellant has already undergone 11 months 5 days of his jail sentence and the appeal be partly allowed by reducing the sentence already undergone by the appellant. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their 4 CRA No. 486 of 2016 rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. The victim PW-5 stated that in his examination-in-chief that on the day of the incident, all the people of the village were discussing about electricity connection and told accused to take electricity connection. Then the accused started abusing him. He further stated that Sarpanch Janak Ram thereafter pacified them by giving advice. He further stated that the accused went 20 minutes before the meeting concluded. He also stated that when after the meeting he was going to his home with Sukhsingh and Vidya Singh Rathiya, the accused came from behind and abused him in the name of mother and sister and attacked him with tangia due to which his neck and left jaw got hurt and he fell down. Thereafter, Sukhsigh and Vidya who were walking ahead of him came and took him to his house. 11. PW-6 Sukh Singh Rathiya stated in his deposition that on the day of the incident when they were returning from the village meeting he and Vidya Singh Rathiya was waking ahead of the victim and suddenly they heard some noise and when they turned back and looked with the help of the torch, they saw the victim lying down on the ground and the accused holding tangiya and thereafter the accused ran away from there. In his cross examination this victim accepted that he has not seen the accused holding tangiya. PW- 10 namely Vidya Singh Rathiya, the independent eye witness 5 CRA No. 486 of 2016 stated in his statement that he know nothing about the incident and has been turned hostile. 12. PW-09 Dr. S.K. Pakera stated that the victim was brought before him for examination and on examination he found a cut wound below the left ear measuring 6 cms., smooth and 2 cms. deep to the bone from which blood was oozing. He has prepared the report which is Ex.P- 9 and stated that the injury is caused by sharp object and has opined for X-ray. He further in query report EX-P11, has stated that that the injuries caused to the victim is not serious in nature. 13. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record, it is evident that the appellant caused injuries to the victim with sharp object but he was not admitted in the hospital. Further, the X-ray report shows that there was no fracture. The learned trial Court after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 14. So far as, the sentence part is concerned, considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, looking to the injury sustained by injured which was not serious in nature, as per MLC; totality of circumstances also shows that the intention of the appellant was not particularly to attack the victim and also the fact that the incident took place 6 CRA No. 486 of 2016 around 14 years ago, the age of the appellant at the relevant time i.e. 45 years; during pendency of this appeal the appellant was 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. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellant back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served, if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 15.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. His convictiond under section 307 of the IPC and the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His 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. 16. 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/- Jyoti (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge