High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 CRA No.540/2016 2025:CGHC:38517 NAFR AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.07 10:50:42 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 540 of 2016 Shashikant Jaiswal S/o Sankatha Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Karsi, Nawapara, P.S. Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh versus ...Appellant State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station AJAK Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant For Respondent/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer. : Mr. Arvind Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judgment on Board Judge 04.08.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07-04-2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST), District: Surajpur, C.G. in Special Sessions Trial No.37/2014 whereby learned Court below convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Conviction Sentence Section 324 of IPC 2 years of R.I. 2 CRA No.540/2016 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.02.2014 at night, the complainant Dhanbabu Paikra, Sanjay Kanwar, Viranjan Kanwar and Narmada Gond were guarding the fish they had reared in the drain of village-Budhadand. At the same time, at 11:00 pm, the appellant came to the spot along with his friend Bhunaram and started quarreling with the complainant Dhanbabu Paikra, Sanjay Kanwar, Viranjan Kanwar and Narmada Gond by using filthy language and assaulted Sanjay Kanwar (injured) with a knife on the left side of his chest near the abdomen and also threatened to kill the complainant Dhanbabu Paikra and Sanjay Kanwar,
Legal Reasoning
Viranjan Kanwar and Narmada God. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged against the appellant under Section 294, 506-B, 323 and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act. The injured was taken to hospital for treatment. After due investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against the appellant. In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to bring home the charges. The accused person abjured the guilt; pleaded innocence; and false implication. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above. 3. 4. 3 CRA No.540/2016 However, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant under Section 294, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that looking to the injuries inflicted to the injured, there was no motive or intention on the part of the appellant to cause injury to injured and only on account of sudden quarrel, under heat of passion, the incident took place. Learned counsel would further submit that the circumstantial evidence does not complete the chain nor an inference of guilt can be drawn on the basis of such evidence as has been brought on record by the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that there is previous animosity between the appellant and injured. Earlier, the FIR was lodged by the appellant against the complainant and injured. He further submits that the feature and ingredients of Section 324 of the IPC is not available in the present case. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 6. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for 7. 8. 4 CRA No.540/2016 the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. PW-3 Sanjay Kumar, injured, stated in his evidence that on the date of incident at around 11:00 pm, he was guarding the fish in Belmunda dam along with Dhanbabu, Narmada and Viranjan of the village. We were all guarding the fish .At that time, the appellant came along with Bhuna Kanwar, started abusing in filthy language in a drunken condition and also threatened to kill him. We stopped the accused from abusing. He further stated that when he was on the ridge of the field, the appellant caught hold to kill and stabbed on the left side of his chest near the armpit with a knife. However, in para 7 of his cross-examination, he admits that the appellant had filed a report against him in Pratappur police station, in which, challan has been filed against in Pratappur Court. 9. PW-4, Narmada, stated in his evidence that on the date of incident at around 9:00 pm, he was present on the spot along with Dhanbabu, Viranjan and Sanjay Kawar. All of them went to guard the dam and reared fish in the dam. He stated that he was sleeping at the time of incident. When he 5 CRA No.540/2016 heard the commotion, he saw that the appellant was using filthy language upon Dhanbabu and Sanjay. Sanjay had sustained injury in his stomach, but he could not see by whom, the injury caused. In cross-examination, he admits that he do not know anything about the incident. 10. PW-1, Dhanbabu, complainant stated in his evidence that there is a dam near the field of Babulal Kanwar of the village, in which, he had reared fish and guarding the dam along with Sanjay, Niranjan and Narmada. At that time, the appellant came, started abusing in filthy language and stabbed Sanjay (injured) with a knife. However, in para 7 of his cross-examination, he admits that a case is pending against them in Pratappur court on the report of appellant for this incident. In Para 6 of his cross-examination, he stated that on the date of incident, he was not met with the appellant. 11. PW-11 Bhunaram stated in his evidence that we reached near Belmunda dam, the waterman was irrigating the appellant’s field. The complainant Dhanbabu and Sanjay etc. had reared fish in Belmunda dam and were guarding them, at the same time, Dhanbabu and Sanjay went there and started stopping the waterman from irrigating. Thereafter, the waterman called and informed that the complainant was stopping the irrigation. After that, when 6 CRA No.540/2016 they went near the field and asked the complainant why they are stopping to irrigate the field, subsequently, he saw that Dhanbabu and Sanjay caught hold of appellant and tied his hands with a cloth. After that, Sanjay(injured) called Narmada and then the appellant was taken in Pick up vehicle of Dhanbabu. 12. PW-10, K.S. Paikra, S.I. stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, an offence was registered against the complainant Dhanbabu on the complaint lodged by the appellant. 13. According to Dr. Narendra Pratap Singh, PW-7, who conducted the medical examination of injured and submitted a report, in which, a punctured injury was found just below the left armpit from which blood was oozing out. The size of the injury was 2 x 3 cm. After seeing the X-ray report, the injury was simple in nature. 14. In view of aforesaid discussions, looking to the evidence of PW-11, Bhunaram, it is manifest that the complainant Dhanbabu, Narmada and Sanjay(injured) were guarding the dam and when the waterman went to irrigate the field of appellant, the complainant stopped him to irrigate, to which, the appellant reached the spot and asking them why are they not allowing to irrigate the field, then, the complainant and others caught hold of the appellant and took him 7 CRA No.540/2016 somewhere in the Pick up vehicle of complainant and due to which, an offence was registered against the complainant on the basis of complaint lodged by the appellant, as it appears from the statement of PW-10, K.S. Paikra, S.I. 15. Also looking to the statement of PW-3 Sanjay (injured), in para 7 of his cross-examination, he admits the fact that the appellant had filed a report of against him in Pratappur police station, in which, challan has been filed against in Pratappur Court. PW-1 Dhanbabu (Complainant), he admits that a case is pending against them in Pratappur court on the report of appellant for this incident. In Para 6 of his cross-examination, he stated that on the date of incident, he was not met with the appellant. Hence, there is a counter FIR was lodged by the both the sides. The dispute between the parties was occurred regarding the irrigation of the field. Before the present incident, it appears from the statement of above evidence that there was good relation among the appellant, complainant and injured. 16. In view of foregoing reasons, there was no pre-intention or motive to cause injury to Sanjay. There was sudden altercation took place between the complainant and the appellant with regard to irrigation of field. Moreover, no FSL report was exhibited in the case. There are material contradiction and omission in the statement of prosecution 8 CRA No.540/2016 witnesses, which are not corroborated the chain of incident. At this stage, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 17. Accordingly, conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges. 18.
Decision
In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. The appellant is on bail. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by him at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 19. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep