Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:4946 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1622 of 2023 1 - Maheshwar @ Natwar Nishad S/o Shri Vishwanath Nishad Aged About 25 Years R/o Achholi, Ramayan Chowk, P.S. Urla, District Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA Raipur, Chhattisgarh versus Appellant 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) CRA No.1588 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
“07. With the aforesid evidence on record and the kind of weapon used, in our view the offence will not fall within Section 307 I.P.C. From the reasons for fights as are emerging on record, it doesn’t seem to be pre-planned act. It, at the most, can fall within the four corners of Section 326 IPC as a sharp-edged weapon was used. The injuries were not caused with an intention to cause death and were not sufficient to cause death. Hence, in our view the conviction of the appellant with respect Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained however the offence under Section 326 IPC is made out. 08. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out that the appellant had already undergone actual sentence of 11 months and 24 days. Considering the fact that the incident had taken place about 23/24 years ago, in our view the sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine imposed is sustained. In Case of non-deposit of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month.” 14. In view of the foregoing legal proposition, in the present case also the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 307 of IPC against the appellants, but looking to the report of both the doctors as well as medical reports, the offence under Section 326 of IPC can be made out against the appellants. Therefore, 7 appellants’ conviction is altered from Section 307 of IPC into Section 326 of IPC. 15. As regards sentence, it is clear that the appellant Maheshwar has remained in jail for more than 3 years and appellant Ritesh has remained in jail for more than 2 years, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 16. The appeals are partly allowed. 17. The appellants are in jail. They be released forthwith if they are not required to be detained in any other offence. 18. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the court concerned forthwith, 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 appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 19. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Nirala Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge
Arguments
1 - Ritesh Nishad S/o Shri Mohan Nishad Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Achholi, Ramayan Chowk, Police Station Urla, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Versus Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Urla, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma and Mr. C. R. Sahu, For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, PL Advocates 2 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 28/01/2025 1. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, therefore, both the appeals are heard together and are being decided by a common order. 2. The present appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.08.2023 passed by the learned 9th Additional Session Judge, Raipur in Session Trial No.397/2021, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.2000/-. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Rambha Nishad lodged a written complainant alleging that on 31.10.2020 at about 9:00 pm, she was informed by her grandson Prashant Nishad that Manish is being beaten by some persons, upon which she rushed there and saw that Manish was being assaulted by the appellants with sharp edged weapon on his stomach and shoulder, thereafter a case was registered against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material 3 available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the witnesses have not stated that the stomach injury which was found to be grievous was caused by the appellants. The appellants have been convicted by the Trial Court merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The prosecution has further failed to adduce credible and conclusive proof of nature of injuries, weapons used and the injuries dangerous for life are not mentioned. The Police had not recovered any weapons sharp edged like knife and even not made any queries regarding the weapon, clothes having blood stains. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, They submit that the incident took place in the year 2020 and the appellants are young boys and the appellant Maheshwar is in jail since 05.08.2021, whereas the appellant Ritesh has been in jail from 05.08.2021 to 21.01.2022 and from 03.08.2023 till date, therefore, they may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that Dr. Devprakash Dewangan (PW-6) clearly opined that injuries caused by the victim are grievous in nature and dangerous to life and gave his report (Ex-P/4), as 4 such learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants. Therefore, the appeals are without any merit and are liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506 Part-II and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC against both the appellants and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellants from the offence under Sections 294 & 506 Part-II of IPC and convicted them under Section 307 of IPC, as mentioned in para 2 of the judgment. 8. The injured Manish Nishad (PW-1) stated that on the date of incident, both the accused assaulted him with knife on his chest and stomach and ran away. He was admitted in Narayana Hospital for 7-8 days. In the cross-examination, he remained firm on his statement. Rambha Bai (PW-2) mother of injured stated that both the accused assaulted her son. Her son told that both the accused assaulted him with knife. Yogesh @ Jani (PW-3) stated that on the date of incident, Maheshwar assaulted the complainant with knife and ran away. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, but he denied this suggestion that at the time of incident, the accused Ritesh was also with Maheshwar and both of them assaulted the injured by 5 knife. Lalit Pal (PW-4) has also not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, but he denied all suggestions of prosecution. 9. It is clear from the statement of the victim that both the accused assaulted him by knife and he sustained injuries. Dr. Devprakash Dewangan (PW-6) examined the victim on 31.10.2020 and found 5 injuries on his chest and stomach and he referred for higher centre and gave report (Ex-P/4) and opined that the injuries are grievous in nature, which may cause death to the victim. In the cross-examination, he admitted that it is true that the injured was not brought to him for treatment and also admitted that after 31.10.2020, he never treated the victim. He also admitted that what report of CT scan has come out, Police did not tell him. 10. Dr. Shirish Yadu (PW-9) stated that on 31.10.2020 Manish Nishad was hospitalized in Narayana Hospital in serious condition for emergency treatment and he operated him during the midnight of 31.10.2020 and 01.11.2020 and he was discharged on 07.11.2020. He identified signature of R. K. Khande, bed head ticket and examination form vide Ex-P/8. In the cross-examination, he admitted that in Ex-P/8, he has not denied his signature. He also admitted this suggestion that the injuries may come if wine bottle spills. 11. It is clear from the statement of both the doctors that the injuries are grievous in nature and dangerous to life but PW-6 Dr. Devprakash Dewangan admitted that he did not treat the victim. 6 Dr. Shirish Yadu stated that he operated the victim, but he denied his signatures in Ex-P/8. 12. On close scrutiny of the statement of both the doctors, it is not proved that the injuries sustained by Manish are dangerous to life, but it is clear that the injuries are grievous in nature. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Panchram versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. reported in 2023SCC Online SC 394 held in paragraphs 07 & 08 which reads as under:-