Durg (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Khursipar, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15006 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 473 of 2023 Dharmendra Tandan Alias Gangu S/o Lakhan Tandan Aged About 25 Years Occupation Guard, R/o Shivaji Nagar, Near Ghasidas Temple, Khursipar, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Khursipar, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Utkal Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 28.03.2025 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 1. Though, today the present appeal has been listed for hearing on IA No.02 of 2025, which is second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, but with the consent of learned
Legal Reasoning
counsel for the parties and considering the period of detention of the appellant, the appeal is being heard finally. 2. 3.
Decision
Accordingly, IA No. 02 of 2025 stands disposed of. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) questioning 2 the impugned judgment dated 11.01.2023 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, District – Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 128/2019, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently in the following manner : CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 307 of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of (For Short, IPC) payment of fine additional R.I. for 06 months. 4. 5. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged on the ground that without there being any clinching evidence; learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.04.2019, Hospital Memos (Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/9) were received from I.M.I. Hospital, Khursipar and Sparsh Multi Specialty Hospital, Bhilai respectively, at Police Station Khursipar, which were verified. An application was given for the medical report of the injured, namely, Chandrahas Buddh (PW-1) mentioned in the said hospital memo. Witness, namely, Shankar Prinhe was questioned, in which it was found that on 20.04.2019, the injured Chandrahas Buddh (PW-1) was returning home after duty from Jio Company Charoda, when he met with a bike accident at around 9.30 PM in front of GE Road, in front of SBI Bank, Khursipar, thereafter, three unknown people beat up 3 the injured and stabbed him a sharp knife in his stomach and fled away by leaving the knife behind. Witness Shankar Prinhe admitted him to I.M.I. Hospital Khursipar for his treatment. The injured was later referred to Sparsh Hospital. After the said investigation, First Information Report (Ex.P/10) was registered against three unknown persons under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC and the case was taken up for investigation. 6. During the course of investigation, Memo (Ex.P/11 and Ex.P/12) were sent to Sparsh Hospital, Bhilai and I.M.I. Hospital, Bhilai seeking information as to whether the injured was in a position to give statement or not. On 21.04.2019, a spot map (Ex.P/14) of the incident was prepared as per the statement given by witness Shankar Prinje. On the same date, blood stained soil and plain soil were seized from the place of incident as per seizure memo (Ex.P/15). On 21.04.2019, Panchnama (Ex.P/21) of the blood stained clothes of the injured, towel, sharp knife, plain soil and blood stained soil was prepared at I.M.I. Hospital. On the same date, after getting the Panchnama, the said items were seized as per seizure memo (Ex.P/24). Thereafter, on 26.04.2019, again a memorandum (Ex.P/13) was sent to Sparsh Hospital, Bhilai in this regard, in view of which the doctors considered the patient to be healthy for his statement, after which the statement of the injured was recorded. 7. During the course of investigation, on 28.04.2019, the accused Dharmendra Tandon, Sanjay Soni and Sunny Shah were taken into 4 custody and their memorandum statements (Exs.P/16, P/17, and P/18) were recorded, respectively, and as per the indication of accused Dharmendra Tandon, a red T-shirt, which had blood-like stains, was recovered as per the recovery Panchnama (Ex.P/20) and seized as per seizure memo (Ex.P/22). A motorcycle and a white shirt with blood-stained greenish colour, were recovered from accused Sanjay Soni as per the recovery panchnama (Ex.P/19) and seized as per seizure memo (Ex.P/23). The accused persons were arrested and the statements of witnesses were also recorded. 8. During the course of investigation, a query report was sought from I.M.I. Hospital by writing a letter regarding the nature of injuries to the victim and the seized knife, in view of which the doctor gave a query report (Ex.P/7). Thereafter, the opinion of the doctor was also sought regarding the blood stains on the seized clothes, in relation to which the doctor advised to get a chemical test done. After getting permission from the Court concerned, the identification of the accused was done by the Additional Tehsildar, Raipur, in relation to which identification memo (Ex.P/1) was prepared. In compliance with the letter (Ex.P/2) sent by the Police Station In- charge to the Revenue OfÏcer, a spot map of the incident (Ex.P/3) was prepared by the Patwari. The seized property was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical testing through the Superintendent of Police, Durg. After other necessary investigation, a charge sheet was presented against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Since the crime prosecuted against 5 the accused was triable by the Sessions Court, the case was surrendered on 30.07.2019. From the Sessions Court, this case was transferred to the Court of the Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg for due hearing and disposal on 22.08.2019. From the said Court, this case was received on transfer to learned trial Court on 07.01.2020. When the charges under Section 307 of the IPC was framed to accused/appellant Dharmendra Tandon, he denied the allegation levelled against him for having committed the offence in question and claimed trial. 9. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearing against him. 10. 11. Learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argues that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is bad in law and thus liable to be set aside and appellant deserves to be acquitted. It is further submitted that when a situation of suspicion arises in any case, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused person but in the instant matter learned trial Court goes against this principle and convicted the appellant. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has failed the appreciate evidence available on record, therefore, 6 conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable under the law. 12. On the other hand, judgment impugned is supported on behalf of the respondent/State and argues that the appellant along with the co-accused persons are said to have assaulted the injured with hand, fist and after that the appellant stabbed to the injured in his stomach with the help of sharp knife, due to which he has received grievous injuries, shows the intention of the appellant and the Court below has imposed appropriate sentence. 13. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial court. Jayendra Singh Baghel (PW-8), Additional Tehsildar who conducted the identification proceedings has stated that on receiving an order from SDM Durg to conduct identification proceedings of the accused arrested in case of Crime No. 126/2019 Section 307, 34 IPC, he went to Central Jail, Durg on 09.07.2019 and conducted identification proceedings of the accused and prepared identification memo (Ex.P/1). He further says that he had made 09 persons of the same age and stature as the accused stand in a line in Central Jail, Durg and had given the opportunity to the accused persons to stand in the line as per their wish. The accused and the persons who were mixed were covered with blankets up to the neck. In this way, he had made 12 persons stand including 09 persons including 03 accused. Thereafter the injured 7 Chandrahas was summoned and asked to identify the accused, then the applicant identified the accused/appellant Dharmendra and co-accused Sunny Shah and he could not identify Sanjay Soni. 15. It is shown from the statements of injured Chandrahas Bauddh (PW-1) and Jaiendra Singh Baghel (PW-8) and the document (Ex.P/1) that the injured had identified the accused Dharmendra Tandon and Sunny Shah in the identification proceedings. 16. Injured, namely, Chandrahas Buddh (PW-1) has stated in his statement that on the date of incident i.e. 20.04.2019 he was returning from his workplace Zero Point Charoda to Kohka on his bike at around 9 PM and reached a little before State Bank of India Khursipar, at the same time the accused came from the front on a bike and hit him along with the motorcycle, due to which he fell down from the bike and the accused also fell down. When he got up, accused Sanjay started fighting him with hand and fists and slapped him on the cheek, then he caught both the hands of Sanjay to stop him, then Sanjay said to Dharmendra to stab him with a knife, after that the appellant/accused Dharmendra took out a knife, to save himself from which he moved a little back, then Dharmendra came and stabbed him in the right side of his stomach, due to which blood was coming out of his stomach and the knife was stuck in his stomach, which the injured caught with one hand and with the other hand he caught Dharmendra's hand, then a crowd started gathering there, seeing which the accused/appellant ran away from there. He has further stated that thereafter people present there called 108 8 and 112 from mobile, but no ambulance came. On removing the knife from his stomach, intestines came out, which were tied with a scarf. When ambulance did not arrive, a person named Shankar present there took him on his motorcycle to I.M.I. Hospital, Khursipar, Bhilai for treatment. He was not getting proper treatment there. At the same time Police ofÏcials and family members came to the hospital and took him to Sparsh Hospital, Ramnagar, Bhilai, where his operation was done and he was admitted there for 15-20 days. 17. Dr. Pratik Naresh Kaushik (PW-4), has stated in his stated that on 20.04.2019, when the injured Chandrahas Budhh (PW-1) was brought to him for treatment by the constable of Police Station Khursipar, he examined the injured and found a stab wound (5 cm long and 5 cm deep) in the right part of his stomach and the intestines of the injured had come out from that place. He also stated that the injury in the medical report through a sketch. The said injury sustained to the injured was grievous in nature and could have been caused by a sharp and pointed weapon. He said that the injury was likely to have been caused by a knife or sword in relation to the said sharp pointed weapon. The injury to the injured was grievous in nature, his intestines were also cut, if treatment was not given at the right time, then it was enough to cause the death of the injured. There were other small abrasions on the body of the injured, which he has not mentioned in the treatment report. This witness has certified the medical report of the injured (Ex.P/6). 18. The statement of Dr. Pratik Naresh Kaushik (PW-4), confirms the 9 injuries sustained by the victim/injured as grievous in nature and dangerous to life. His statements also show that the Police had sent a knife to him for inquiry and wanted to know whether the injured person's death was possible due to the injury sustained by him or not, in relation to which he has given his opinion that the injured person (PW-1) could have been injured by the knife and his death was also possible due to the injury sustained by him. The statement of Dr. Pratik Naresh Kaushik (PW-4) also corroborates with the statements of Dr. Rahul Singh (PW-9). 19. The evidence of the injured Chandrahas Buddh (PW-1) is supported by the medical evidence of witnesses Dr. Pratik Naresh Kaushik (PW-4) and Dr. Rahul Singh (PW-9). Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the injured Chandrahas Buddh. It is shown from the evidence of the injured Chandrahas Buddhist and the medical witnesses that due to the accused Dharmendra hitting the injured with a knife in the stomach, his intestines also came out, which shows that the said injury was sufÏcient to cause the death of the injured.. 20. As regards the nature of injury is concerned, injury found on the right part of the stomach of the injured person (PW-1) which was found to be a stab wound (5 cm long and 5 cm deep) and the intestines of the injured had come out from that place, so far as the opinion of the Doctor witnesses are concerned, the injuries are grievous in nature and dangerous to life, if treatment was not given 10 at the right time, then it was enough to cause the death of the injured. 21. After appreciating the above statements of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence available on record, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Taking into consideration, conviction of the appellant is sustainable under the law. 22. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and as such, I am of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the learned trial Court. 23. From the above analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/convict. 24. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 25. The appellant/convict is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 11.01.2023. 26. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along 11 with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar