Champa (C.G.) v. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station Nawagarh, Distri
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.04.03 14:57:05 +0530 2025:CGHC:15355 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 359 of 2010 1 - Radhelal @ Radheshyam, S/o Shri Tungan Kashyap, aged about 38 years, R/o Village Amora, Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 – Roopchand @ Lalu, S/o Shri Bhagirathi Kashyap, aged about 19 years, R/o Village Amora, Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent/State For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal 01/04/2025 Judgment on Board 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.05.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa(C.G.), in Session Case No.04/2010 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: 2 Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 326/34 of IPC RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default thereof, 3 months additional RI. 2. The prosecution story in short is that on 31/10/09, at around 6:00–6:15 PM in village Amora, the complainant, Lakesh Kumar Kashyap was returning home from the canal side. On the way, the appellant along with one juvenile stopped him and on the dispute of watering the fields, all the three abused him with obscene words. The juvenile and Lalu threatened to kill him, while the accused Radhelal attacked him with an iron rod. The juvenile and Lalu also assaulted him with fists, causing injuries to his head and other parts of his body. The incident was witnessed by, Ramkishun and Ramkishun’s brother-in-law Dhasiram. On the same day, the complainant lodged a report at Nawagarh police station, where case was registered against the appellants. A site map of the crime scene was prepared, and an iron rod was seized from the accused Radhelal. The complainant’s medical examination was conducted, revealing that he had suffered a skull fracture along with other injuries on his body. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. 3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. The statement of the appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the matter. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.05.2010, the learned Judge has acquitted the appellants for offence U/s 3 294 and 506 Part-II of the IPC. However, convicted and sentenced the appellants for offence U/s 326/34 of IPC in place of Section 307/34 IPC. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that no case under Section 326 of the IPC can be made out against the appellants rather the maximum case is under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code as the injury caused to the complainant Lakesh Kumar Kashyap was caused by a hard and blunt object instead of pointed and sharp object. Therefore, the conviction under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for the injury of the complainant is not appropriate. He further submits that the appellants have already remained in jail for about 12 days. Therefore, the conviction under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code may be altered/converted to section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants may sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. In this case, Dr. MD Tendve (PW-7) has given a report (Exhibit P-7) after medically examining the complainant Lakesh, stating that he has seven injuries as follows:- 1. The complainant had a lacerated wound measuring 5 x 1 x 0.5 cm, extending from front to back on the head. 2. A lacerated wound on the middle part of the head measuring 6 x 1 x 0.5 cm. 3. A lacerated wound on the middle finger of the left hand measuring 3 x 1 x 1 cm. 4. A swelling with an abrasion on the left scapular region measuring 2 x 1 cm, which was painful to touch. 5. An abrasion on the right side of the chest measuring 1 x 0.5 cm. 6. A mild abrasion on the left upper arm. 7. A suspected fracture of the mandible (jawbone), for which an X-ray was advised. 4 9. Dr. M.D. Tendave (PW-7) has stated that the injuries sustained by the victim could have been caused by any hard and blunt object. He advised injured Lakesh for X-ray examination. Radiologist Doctor Archana Singh (PW-9) has given a report (Exhibit P-15) after conducting X-ray examination of complainant Lakesh, stating that there was a linear fracture in the right temporal bone. Thus, it is clear that the complainant had a grievous injury. But it is not reflected from the doctors’ statement that the injuries caused to him were caused by any pointed or sharp object. The dispute was taken place regarding the issue of water supply in the fields. The attack was done with an iron rod. The grievous injury found on the injured Lakesh is the injury caused by a hard and blunt object. In the above situation, the conviction of the appellants is not made under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code so far as the case of the appellants falls within the ambit of Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants is altered/converted from Section 326 to Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. As regards the sentence part, keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2009 i.e. about 15-16 years old. The appellants have already remained in jail for 12 days. They have no previous criminal record. The grievous injury was caused with an iron rod. The linear fracture found on right temporal bone. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellants to jail and the ends of justice would serve if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 12. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants is altered/converted from Section 326/34 of IPC to Section 5 325/34 of IPC and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 12 days. However, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.10,000/- for each of the appellants. Further, if any amount has been deposited by the appellants as fine, the same shall be adjusted in the fine imposed on them today by this Court. 13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 14.The appellants are on bail. If the fine amount is not deposited within 60 days from today, the bail bonds of the appellants shall be considered cancelled and the fine amount shall be recovered as per law. 15. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Shubham