Chain Yadav @ Guddu, S/o Puniram Yadav, aged about 26 years, R/o Shankar v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir - Champa
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18187 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 944 of 2007 Chain Yadav @ Guddu, S/o Puniram Yadav, aged about 26 years, R/o Shankar Nagar, Champa, P.S. Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate. For Respondent/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment On Board 22/04/2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.10.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.106/2007 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 325 IPC & sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one 2 year with fine of Rs.1000/-, plus default stipulation. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Lachhan Bai was running the business of bricks and she had transaction in this regard with accused and on 15.04.2007 he had gone to complainant. The accused/appellant and other co- accused started hurling abuses saying that she did not supply bricks even after payment. The complainant objected the act of the accused/appellant, whereupon accused/appellant and other co-accused pulled her holding hand and assaulted her with bricks, as a result of which her left hand got fractured. Upon complaint being made by the complainant in this regard, an F.I.R. (Ex.P-8) was registered against accused/appellant and other co-accused persons under Section 294, 325 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act. The caste certificate of the complainant was seized under Ex.P-1. The complainant was sent for medical examination to B.D.M. Hospital, Champa, where Dr. K.P. Rathore (PW-2) examined her and found swelling on left hand, swelling and abrasion in 5th finger of complainant and gave his report under Ex.P-2. Fracture was also found in middle finder of left hand vide Ex.P-3. Spot map was prepared, brick was seized under Ex.P-6. Statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and after completing the usual investigation, charge sheet under 3 Sections 294, 325, 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the SC/ST Act was filed against the accused/appellant and other co-accused person before the jurisdictional Court. 3. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court framed the charges against accused/appellant and other co-accused person under Sections 294, 325 read with section 34 IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) & 3 (1) (xi) of the SC/ST Act. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 06 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant and other co-accused person were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, while acquitting co-accused from the offence under Sections 294, 325/34 IPC, Section 3 (1) (x) and (xi) of SC/ST Act and present appellant from the offence under Sections 294 of IPC and 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the SC/ST Act, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad, improper, incorrect and illegal. The learned trial Court 4 did not appreciate oral and documentary evidence properly and gone wrong in holding the appellant guilty of the offence. The evidence of prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence and are not safe to rely. Therefore, the appellant deserves for acquittal setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. In alternate, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident took place in the year 2007 i.e. about 22 years back, the accused/appellant has already remained in jail for 03 days, by now the appellant is aged around 47 years and no useful purpose would served in again sending him back to jail, therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the learned State counsel that conviction of the accused/appellant is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that it has framed charges under Sections 294, 325,34 IPC and 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xi) of SC/ST Act against the appellant and co-accused person & after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court while 5 acquitting co-accused from the offence under Sections 294, 325/34 IPC, Section 3 (1) (x) and (xi) of SC/ST Act and present appellant from the offence under Sections 294 of IPC and 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the SC/ST Act, convicted him under Section 325 of IPC. 10. Complainant Lachhan Bai (PW-3) has stated that on the date of incident when she was in her house, at the relevant time, accused/appellant came on cycle, assaulted her with brick as a result of which she sustained injuries on her left hand and middle finger of left hand got fractured. She has also stated the report of the incident was made by her in police station and her MLC was also conducted by doctor. The defence has cross-examined this witness at length but has not been able to elicit anything in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony especially to the fact that the accused/appellant has not assaulted her with brick and she has not sustained injury on her left hand including fracture. 11. The evidence of this witness is well corroborated by the evidence of Dr. K.P. Rathore (PW-2) who has stated that on the date of incident i.e. on 15.04.2007, the complainant was brought by the police for examination and upon examination he found swelling over left hand, abrasion and swelling on 5th finger of left hand & gave his report under Ex.P-2. He has also stated that on the date of incident itself, x-ray of the 6 complainant was one and upon examination he found fracture in middle finger of left hand of complainant and gave his report under Ex.P-3. 12. Close scrutiny of the evidence, in particular the statement of complainant PW-3 whose evidence is duly corroborated by the evidence of PW-2, makes it clear that on 15.04.2007, the accused/appellant hurling abuses assaulted the complainant PW-3 with brick which resulted into swelling and abrasion on her left hand and middle finger was also got fractured. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt and held him guilty under Section 325 of IPC. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said findings recorded by the learned trial Court and therefore, the same is hereby affirmed. 13. The only question which arises for consideration by this Court is as to what would be the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon the accused/appellant. 14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that the incident occurred 22 years ago, the appellant has already remained in jail for about 03 days, the appeal is pending since 2007 and by now he is aged around 46 years, this Court is of the opinion that no useful 7 purpose would be served in sending him back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 15.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 325 of IPC, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 16. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of BNSS. 17. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Digitally signed pekde by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE