Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 694 of 2007 Jaipal S/o Bhanwar Singh Gond Aged About 39 Years, R/o Mujgahan, Police Station – Balod, Distt. Durg (CG) versus ... Appellant State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station – Balod, Distt. Durg (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 09/06/2025 The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.8.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, Distt. Durg in ST No.5/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- or else to suffer additional six months’ RI. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.3.2007 at around 10.30 pm while complainant Mohan Singh was sitting in the betel shop of Roop Singh, the accused/appellant with intention to kill him came 2 from behind with a sharp edged weapon and assaulted with it on his temporal region as a result of which the complainant fell down and became unconscious. Immediately thereafter he was taken to hospital for treatment by the persons present there. It was subsequently revealed that there was old land related dispute between the accused and the complainant. During investigation, the complainant was got medically examined, spot map was prepared, plain and bloodstained soil as also the clothes of the victim were seized. At the instance of accused, axe and bicycle were seized and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against him. Learned trial Court framed charge u/s 307 of IPC against the accused, which was abjured by him and he prayed for trial. 03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by him in defence. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. There are 3 material contradiction and omission in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. PW-1 Balvant Singh states that he was informed by Roop Singh (PW-4) that some trucker assaulted complainant Mohan Singh near betel shop of Roop Singh and ran away whereas PW-4 Roop Singh states that Mohan Singh was sitting on a brick-bench alone and all of a sudden he fell down and blood was oozing from his temporal region. He denied the suggestion that he saw axe in the hands of the accused and also nowhere stated that he informed about the incident to Balwant Singh. Even complainant Mohan Singh (PW-1) in para 7 admits that he did not see the assailant and he was informed by the persons that the accused was the assailant. PW-3 Milandas, PW-5 Shyamlal, PW-6 Rahman Khan and PW-7 Lomas Thakur also state that they did not see the assailant. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charge under Section 326 of IPC. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that if this ultimately comes to the conclusion that conviction of the appellant is proper, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the incident which took place in the year 2007, the appeal is pending since 2007, he remained in jail for about one month; he was on bail during trial and even during pendency of this appeal but never 4 misused the liberty while on bail, his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Section 307 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court while acquitting him of the said charge, convicted and sentenced him under Section 326 of IPC as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment 09. PW-2 complainant Mohan Singh Thakur states that on the date of incident he was sitting near the betel shop of Roop Singh. At that time, the accused/appellant came from behind and assaulted on left temporal region with axe as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious and admitted in hospital. He admits that he did not see the assailant and the persons present there informed him that it is the accused/appellant who inflicted injury on him. 5 10. PW-1 Balwant Singh states that he was informed by Roop Singh Thakur (PW-4) about the incident that the accused ran away after assaulting the complainant with axe. PW-3 Milandas, PW-4 Roop Singh and PW-7 Romas Thakur have stated that on the date of incident when the complainant was sitting in the betel shop of Roop Singh, he was assaulted with axe and he fell down. 11. PW-8 Dr. RK Gore examined the complainant and gave his report Ex.P/14. He found clear cut-incised injury over left mastoid region of size 3” x 1” x ½” and it was bleeding. In his opinion the injury was grievous in nature. He referred the victim to District Hospital, Durg for needful treatment as also for x-ray and expert opinion. The bedhead ticket is Ex.P/15 and OPD ticket is Ex.P/16. He states that the victim was hospitalized from 25th March to 28th March, 2007. As per x-ray report, he did not find any fracture. The x-ray report is Ex.P/7. 12. It is thus clear from the statement of PW-8 Dr. RK Gore that no fracture was found in the x-ray report (Ex.P/7) and as per the bed head ticket, the victim remained hospitalized only for four days. However, the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts and without medical evidence found that the complainant sustained grievous injuries. Looking to the statement of PW-8 Dr. RK Gore, the nature and extent of injury this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the accused caused grievous hurt to the victim. However, the oral and documentary evidence on record including the medical 6 evidence prove the fact it is the accused/appellant who voluntarily caused injury with axe to the victim, making him liable for conviction under Section 324 of IPC. 13. As regards sentence, considering the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2007, the appeal is also pending since 2007; the appellant was on bail during trial as well as during pendency of this appeal; at the time of incident he was 39 years old and at present would be 57 years; he has remained in jail for more than one month, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping him behind the bar any longer at this stage and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of IPC is altered to one under Section 324 of IPC and his jail sentence thereunder is reduced to the period already undergone by him. He is in jail pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued against him, therefore, he be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. His bail bonds furnished earlier shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.06.13 16:23:31 +0530 MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Khan