Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:16038 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 789 of 2007 Rajjan Sahu @ Rajesh Sahu, S/o Durga Prasad, aged about 24 years, R/o In front of Mission School, Gourela, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus ---- Appellant State of Chhattisgarh Through. – Police Station – Gourela, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (Judgment on Board) 04.04.2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in S.T. No.347/2008 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 307 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.200/-, in 2 default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo R.I. for one month. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29.05.2006 at around 9.30 PM, when Anil Sahu, brother of injured Sunil Kumar Sahu, was coming towards his house from Shyamu Tiwari, appellant Rajjan Sahu, neighbour of injured Sunil Sahu, started uttering abuses to Anil and extending life threat went inside his house and came with sword. Hearing the noise of appellant, injured Sunil came out of his house and whom appellant Rajjan inflicted injury on his head by sword and the blood was oozing from the injury. The said incident was witnessed by Shyamu (PW-3), Jagar Lal (PW- 10), Shanu Bai (PW-5), Kamta Bai (PW-4) etc. Thereafter, injured Sunil was taken to Police Station – Gourela by his brother Anil Sahu, from where injured Sunil was taken to Senetorium Hospital, Pendra Road. On the report being
Legal Reasoning
made by injured Sunil Sahu, an FIR under Crime No.106/2006 was registered against the appellant. During investigation, MLC and X-ray of injured Sunil Sahu was conducted in Govt. Hospital, Gourela. Nazri map of the incident was prepared under Ex.P-12. Memorandum statement of the accused/appellant was taken under Ex.P-3 and at the instance of appellant, the weapon of offence i.e. sword was recovered from his house and seized under 3 Ex.P-4. The said weapon of offence was subjected to query from doctor under Ex.P-10. Query report of injury sustained by the injured was also sought for from the doctor and report thereof was obtained under Ex.P-6 and P-7, according to which, the injuries sustained by the injured were fatal. Patwari prepared spot map was under Ex.P-8. Statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. After filing of charge-sheet, the trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 294, 506-B, 307 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was 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 the appellant from the offence under Sections 294, 506-B IPC, Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, has convicted and sentenced the present accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the 4 impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is against the principle of law applicable to facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel also submits that no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the appellant because there are contradictions and improvement in the statement of the witnesses. There is also delay in lodging the FIR and no plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecution. The Investigation Officer (PW-9) has admitted that no FIR was lodged regarding the incident and prior to 30.05.2006 about 19.30 PM, no one has lodged the FIR. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court has committed grave error of facts and in arriving at a conclusion of guilt of the appellant. The learned trial Court failed to consider the evidence of Doctor (PW-6) who has not stated about the nature of injuries sustained by the injured whether it was grievous in nature or not. The learned trial Court has also failed to see that when the Doctor had sent a report to the police station on 29.05.2006 then why the prosecution has not written any roznamcha sanha or any report. The learned trial Court has also failed to see that weapon of offence has been seized after a lapse of 8 days, which creates suspicion on the prosecution case. Learned counsel also submits that the 5 important witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, considering all the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the appeal may be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 7.
Legal Reasoning
Alternative submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that if this Court finds and proves the guilt of the appellant, then the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him as the appellant has already remained in jail for more than 02 months, the incident took place in the year 2006 and thereby 19 years have rolled by since then and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him back to jail, therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by learned counsel for the State that conviction of the accused/appellant is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Section 294, 506- 6 B, 307 IPC, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellant from the offence under Sections 294, 506-B IPC, Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, convicted him under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced as described in para 1 of this judgment. 11. Sunil Sahu (PW-1) has stated that on 29.05.2006, when he along with his brother Anil Sahu and other with Jagarlal were sitting in his house, at the relevant time, after hearing the sound, they came out of the house and saw the quarrel between Anil and appellant Sajjan. There was free fight which was pacified by him and thereafter both of them went to their respective house. After some time, when his younger brother Anil was present in front of his house, the appellant came out from his house holding sword in his hand and ran towards Anil uttering abuses. At the relevant time, this witness caught hold the appellant and snatched the sword from the hands of appellant. His aunt (Buwa) i.e. mother of appellant, who was also present at the spot came out of the house and caught hold him then appellant hit him with sword on his head, his head got cut and blood was oozing from the head. The defence has cross-examined this witness at length but has not been able to elicit anything to discredit his testimony that the appellant has not caused 7 injury to him. 12. Anil Sahu (PW-2) is the younger brother of injured Sunil Sahu (PW-1). He has also categorically stated that the appellant assaulted his brother Sunil with sword on his head. Defence has also cross-examined this witness at length but has not been able to elicit anything to discredit his testimony. 13. That apart, Kamta Bai Sahu (PW-4), sister-in-law and Shanu Sahu (PW-5), wife of injured Sunil Sahu, have also supported the evidence of injured/complainant Sunil Sahu and stated that the accused/appellant has assaulted Sunil Sahu with sword on his head. Defence has also cross- examined these witnesses at length but has not been able to elicit anything in their cross-examination to discredit their testimonies. 14. Further, Dr. (Smt.) Subhadra Painkra (PW-6) who medically examined injured Sunil Sahu on 30.05.2006, has stated that after examination she found incised wound on the middle 1/3rd of right parietal region of scalp in the size of 7 cm x 2 cm x ½ cm and gave her report under Ex.P-6. The doctor has further stated that she advice for x-ray of injured to ascertain the gravity of injury. The doctor has also stated that according to x-ray report (Ex.P-9), no fracture was found. The Doctor has also admitted in para 9 of her cross- 8 examination that on 05.06.2006, victim Sunil had been discharged from the hospital and if the victim’s injury was serious, he would have been kept in the hospital for treatment or he would have been referred to Bilaspur hospital. 15. Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue where medical evidence given great corroborative value in Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh Vs. State of Bihar and connected matter reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 497 held in paras 18, 20, 21 and 22 as under :- “18. The evidentiary value of a medical witness is very crucial to corroborate the case of prosecution and it is not merely a check upon testimony of eyewitnesses, it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. It has been reiterated by this court that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value as it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged. In the case at hand, PW-8, Dr. Himkar who examined the informant PW-6 has clearly stated that all the injuries attributed on the informant were caused by firearms and that tattooing may not appear over the wound (injured area) if a person fires from 6-7 ft . 19. xxxx 9 20. It is a well-know fact that the term “hurt” simply means performing an act which leads to physical pain, injury or any disease to a person. At times, hurt may be caused voluntarily or it can by caused by using dangerous weapons or mean. A person will be liable to have caused hurt voluntarily through dangerous weapons and means under Section 324 IPC which reads as under :- “324.Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. – Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, of with fine, or with both.” 21. To establish an offence under Sec 324 IPC, the presence of following ingredients is a must which are as follows :- 1. Voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused, and 10 2. Such hurt was caused : a. By any instrument used for shooting, or stabbing, or any other instrument likely to cutting cause death, or b. By fire or other heated instruments, or c. By poison or other corrosive substance, or d. By any explosive substance, or e. By a substance that is dangerous for the human body to swallow, inhale, or receive through blood, or f. By an animal. 22. When a person commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and means under Section 324 of Indian penal Code, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of three years, or with fine. 16. In the case in hand, it is evident from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the accused/appellant caused hurt on the body (head) of the injured PW-1 by using weapon sword on account of some dispute which took place between the appellant and the brother of injured. It is also stands corroborated from the evidence of the prosecution witness (PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5) to that of the 11 medical evidence of Dr. PW-6 that injured PW-1 sustained injury on his head and according to the x-ray report (Ex.P- 9), there was no fracture on the head of the injured and the prosecution did not file any medical report with regard to the grievousness of very injury sustained by injured whether it was fatal/dangerous to life of injured PW-1 and the Dr. PW-6 only stated that the injuries sustained by injured were simple in nature and had it been serious or dangerous, the injured would have been admitted in hospital or referred to Bilaspur hospital. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of case, the nature and number of injuries coupled with the medical evidence and further considering the fact that there is nothing in the medical report of doctor that injuries sustained by the injured were fatal to life, it would not be safe to hold that the appellant caused injury to injured PW-1 in an attempt to commit his murder. However, the nature and number of injuries caused and the weapon used for causing such injury, it can safely be said that the accused/appellant had caused hurt to the injured with dangerous weapon sword making him liable to be convicted under Section 324 IPC. 17. As regards the sentence, considering the fact that the appellant has already remained in jail for a period of about two months and the incident had taken place in the year 12 2006 i.e. about 19 years have elapsed since then, the appellant at the time of incident was aged around 24 years and by now he is aged about 43 years, this Court is of the considered opinion that it will be in the interest of justice to sentence him to the period already undergone by him. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC is altered to Section 324 IPC and is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 19. 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. 20. 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 pekde signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE