Champa (C.G.) v. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station Chandrapur, District Janjgir
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2025:CGHC:33007 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on: 28.04.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 15.07.2025 CRA No. 355 of 2008 Krishnakant Yadav, aged about 36 years, S/o Shri Thandaram Yadav, R/o village Parsada, P.S. Chandrapur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station Chandrapur, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant For Complainant For State : : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. Ms. Apurva Nigam, Advocate. Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C.A.V. Judgment 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.03.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 248/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 307/34 of IPC R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs. 5000/-each, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 05 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case is that on the date of incident i.e., on 11.09.2007 at about 2:30 am when the complainant Laxmi Prasad Yadav (PW/05) along with Nilambar Mehar and Vikram Sidar were sleeping in Anand Vihar Dhaba at Barhaguda main road and at that time the appellant/accused Krishna Kant Yadav along with his friend Ravi Nayak went there in Dhaba by Jeep bearing registration No. C.G.- 13-C-1935 and they asked for meal as they were famished, when the complainant Laxmi Prasad Yadav denied to supply them food being late night as the Dhaba was closed, the accused/appellant took out pistol from his waist and threatened him by saying that supply him meal/food or else they will kill him and accused/appellant fired pistol bullet which went away to the wall and stuck thereon the wall as the complainant Laxmi Prasad Yadav bent down his head and hence the bullet of the pistol did not touch the neck of the complainant. Upon hearing the gunshot, Nilambar Mehar and Vikram Sedar woke up and they were also threatened by the accused/appellant and the co- accused and then they left for Raigarh. Thereafter, the complainant Laxmi Prasad Yadav immediately lodged the complaint before the Police Station Chandrapur and on the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, the Police has registered the offence under Section 307 3 of the IPC as Crime No. 124/2007, against the appellant and the investigation was started and the appellant was taken into custody and the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate and the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for offence under Section 307/34 of IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 5. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal preferred by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in law as well as on facts in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The learned trial Court has misconceived the law involved in case and has wrongly appreciated the evidence on record. There is no motive present in the case, as also there is no injury and no any intention to kill proved by the prosecution in this case. The prosecution witnesses namely Lakshmi Prasad Yadav (PW/05), Nilambar (PW/01) and Vikram Singh Sidar (PW/10) have not supported the prosecution case. The learned 4 trial court ought to have seen that there is neither memorandum, nor seizure of pistol and its cartridge from the appellant/accused, as such the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the appellant under Section 307 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the appellant and the complainant have settled their disputes in this case and they have filed an application I.A. No. 01/2025 on 25.04.2025 for compromise before this Court. The complainant Lakshmi Prasad Yadav (PW/05) filed affidavit in support of the application for compromise. The appellant has remained in jail for more than 06 months and he is now aged more than 50 years, so their compromise application may be allowed and the appellant is liable to be acquitted of the charge so leveled against him. 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present accused/appellant, so this appeal is being devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 9. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 307, 307/34 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the 5 appellant of Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, but convicted him under Section 307 of IPC and acquitted the co-accused Ravi Nayak of the charges leveled against him. 10. (PW-05) Lakshmi Prasad Yadav/complainant has deposed that on the date of incident, the accused and one other person came to his hotel and they have demanded food from them and when he told them that being late night, the Dhaba was closed, then the accused Krishnakant Yadav shot at him using pistol, then he lodged F.I.R. against the appellant/accused vide Ex. P/14, however, the prosecution has declared him hostile and cross-examined him, then he admitted the suggestion of the prosecution that the accused/appellant fired pistol bullet at him which went away to the wall and stuck thereon the wall as the complainant Laxmi Prasad Yadav bent down his head and hence the bullet of the pistol did not touch the neck of the complainant. In para 07 of his cross-examination the complainant stated that it is true to say that the accused/appellant did not fire pistol at him, he also admitted this suggestion of the defence that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol and he wrongly pressed the trigger of the pistol. 11. (PW/01) Nilambar Mehar, (PW/04) Mahesh Ram & (PW/09) Vikram Sidar have not supported the prosecution case and prosecution declared them hostile and cross-examined them, but they denied all suggestions of the prosecution. The learned trial Court only on the basis of the deposition of the complainant/Lakshmi Prasad Yadav, convicted the accused/appellant, but it is evident from the statement of the complainant that first he admitted the suggestion of the prosecution, 6 then he admitted the suggestion of the defence and he also admitted this suggestion that the accused/appellant did not shot at him. 12. It is clear from the statement of Mahesh Ram (PW/04) that no firearm injury was caused to the complainant and before this Court, the complainant filed application for compromise with the appellant. The statements of the complainant are not reliable. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the contradiction in the statement of the complainant/Lakshmi Prasad Yadav (PW/05). No eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, as such the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are not sustainable. 13. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/appellant. 14. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.03.2008 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge leveled against him. The appellant is already reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7 15. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court for compliance and necessary action. (Rajani Dubey) Sd/- Judge U. K. Raju