State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Monu @ Mohammad Tanjeer S/o Mohammad Nizam Aged About 27 Years R/o
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:42116 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1514 of 2022 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Monu @ Mohammad Tanjeer S/o Mohammad Nizam Aged About 27 Years R/o Nurani Chowk, Raja Talab, Near Haal- Kila Wale Baba, Bramhapuri, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohammad Uwaish S/o Gulam Shabir Aged About 27 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar Gausiya Chowk, Near Taj Electrical, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mohammad Shafique S/o Mohammad Amid Aged About 31 Years R/o K. K. Road, Maudhapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) For Appellant/State :Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent Nos.2 and 3 :Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant/State. Also heard Mr. Hemant Kumar 2 Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The accused/respondent No.1 was produced through video conferencing when the case was called out, in compliance with the Court’s order dated 19.08.2025. On a pointed query being made to the accused/respondent No.1 as to whether Monu @ Mohammad Tanjeer, who has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of ₹500/- on each of two counts, has filed any criminal appeal against his conviction, he fairly submitted that he has not preferred any appeal from jail and stated that his family members might have preferred the appeal. 3. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned State counsel that no such appeal has been preferred till date. The learned State counsel further informed the Court that the respondent No.1, Monu @ Mohammad Tanjeer, has also been
Facts
convicted by the trial Court in a case under Section 302 of IPC, wherein he was sentenced to life imprisonment. At present, he is confined and serving the said sentence in Central Jail, Bilaspur. It is further submitted that against the said conviction, the respondent No.1 had preferred a criminal appeal, which was registered as CRA No.1790/2020, and after hearing the matter, a Division Bench of this Court, dismissed the appeal and afÏrmed the judgment of the trial Court. 4. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order 3 of sentence dated 20.10.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Raipur, in Sessions Case No. 256/2014 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Monu @ Mohammad Tanjeer and others). The appeal has been preferred for enhancement of conviction and sentence, whereby Respondent No.1, Monu @ Mohammad Tanjeer, has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC (two counts) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years on each count with a fine of ₹500/- each. He has further been convicted under Section 25(1-B) (b) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with a fine of ₹500/-. In default of payment of fine in each offence, he is directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely Mohammad Uwaish and Mohammad Shafique, have been convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 119 days and 120 days, respectively. 5. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that the injured/complainant Prateek Dhansani lodged a report at Police Station Purani Basti stating therein that he is a resident of Shankar Nagar and a final year C.A. student. On 28.10.2014, at about 3:30 p.m., he was travelling on a motorcycle with his friend Nikhilesh Bangre, after collecting a book from their classmate Anamika Dewangan’s house at Kailashpuri, and was heading towards Sadar Bazar. When they reached near the Baba Mazar at Brahmapuri Fort, some persons 4 were bursting crackers on the road. In the meantime, one cracker burst near their motorcycle. When the injured/complainant and their friend objected the same, a boy with curly hair, wearing a green shirt and an earring, started abusing them and stated that they were celebrating the birth of his daughter by bursting crackers. Meanwhile, his three companions also arrived. The first boy, while hurling obscene abuses, took out a knife and with the intention to kill, attacked Prateek Dhansani/injured. When injured/Prateek tried to defend himself, the knife missed his abdomen and struck his thigh. When his friend Nikhilesh tried to intervene, the assailant also stabbed him on his left thigh, causing injuries. The other companions assaulted them with fists, causing an injury on Nikhilesh’s nose. 6. On the basis of the oral report of Prateek Dhansani/injured, a Dehati Nalishi (Preliminary Report) vide Ex.P-9 was registered at Police Station Purani Basti. Based on this report, FIR (Ex.P-10) was lodged against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 307, 34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act in Crime No. 290/2014. 7. During the course of investigation, medical examination of the injured/Prateek Dhansani and Nikhilesh Bangre was conducted and the doctor after examining the injured opined that the injuries are found to be grievous in nature which are sufÏcient to cause death of the victims and treatment-related documents were collected. Blood- stained and plain soil were seized from the spot under seizure memo (Ex.P-15). A site map (Ex.P-20) was prepared by the police, 5 and another map (Ex.P-06) was prepared by the revenue ofÏcial (Patwari). The clothes worn by the injured at the time of the incident were seized under seizure memos (Ex.P-08 and Ex.P-21). The memorandum statement of accused Monu @ Tanjeer was recorded in the presence of witnesses, and pursuant to his disclosure, a button-actuated knife used in the offence was recovered. 8. Statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded and thereafter the memorandum statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded in the presence of witnesses, wherein they admitted the commission of the crime, and at their instance, the article used in the crime, i.e., a knife, was seized. Thereafter, the police authorities, after due investigation in the matter, filed a charge-sheet against the respondents/accused and co-accused Chota Abid Khan before the Court having competent jurisdiction, i.e., Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. 9. On a prima facie case being made out against the respondents/accused, charges were framed against them for the aforesaid offences. However, the respondents/accused denied the charges leveled against them in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and thereafter the case of the respondents was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. 10. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined a total of 6 12 witnesses. (PW-04) Nikhilesh Bangre is an injured witness in the case. The prosecution has not examined another injured person, namely Prateek Dhansani. (PW-01) Dr. Snehlata Singh conducted the medical examination of the injured persons. (PW-05) Ramkumar Sahu, Head Constable, recorded the Dehati Nalishi (preliminary complaint) and the First Information Report and referred the injured persons to the doctor for medical examination. (PW-08) Mithlesh Pandey, Patwari, is the witness who prepared the site map. (PW-12) D.S. Dehari is the Investigating OfÏcer of the case. (PW-02) Shankar Yadav, a witness to the spot, did not support the prosecution case on material points. (PW-05) Tarun Tiwari and (PW-06) Sheikh Akbar are seizure witnesses for the knife recovered from the accused Monu @ Tanjeer on the basis of his memorandum statement; however, they also did not support the prosecution case. 11. (PW-07) Dayanand Sharma is a seizure witness. (PW-09) Parmanand Nishad and (PW-10) Sheikh Mukhtar are spot witnesses. These three witnesses also did not support the prosecution case on material points. (PW-11) Sheikh Chand also did not support the prosecution case. Thus, the prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of the injured witness (PW-04) Nikhilesh Bangre, the medical evidence of the doctor who examined the injuries of the injured persons, and the statement of the Investigating OfÏcer. 12. After completion of the trial, the trial Court, vide the impugned 7 judgment dated 20/10/2021 passed by the Court of learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 256/2014, convicted Respondent No.1, Monu @ Mohammad Tanjeer, for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC (two counts) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years on each count with a fine of ₹500/- each. He has further been convicted under Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with a fine of ₹500/-. In default of payment of fine in each offence, he is directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Similarly Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely Mohammad Uwaish and Mohammad Shafique, have been convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 119 days and 120 days, respectively. 13. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 20/10/2021 passed by the Court of learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 256/2014, the appellant/State preferred CRMP No. 247/2022, State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Monu @ Mohd. Tanjeer and Others, before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the matter was listed in default as per the defects pointed out by the Registry of this Court. Later on, the appellant/State moved an application for withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh case, and accordingly, vide order dated 23/08/2022, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved in favour of the appellant as mentioned in the application. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial 8 Court has failed to consider the fact that as per section 307 of IPC it has been stipulated that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. He further submits that the learned trial Court has committed error of law in not convicting the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC whereas the Indian Penal Code prescribes for a sentence of 10 years and thus the impugned judgment is erroneous. It is respectfully submitted that the measures for punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and therefore the learned trial Court should have imposed adequate conviction and sentence vide impugned judgment for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC. It is respectfully submitted that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efÏcacy of law and society could not long endure under serious threats such type of conduct by the accused. He further submits that it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sevaka Perumal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR SC 1991 1463 In para 8 of the judgment it has been observed as under:- 9 "It will be a mockery of justice to permit the accused to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser punishment for the accused would be to render the justicing system of the country suspect. The common man will lose faith in courts. In such cases, he understands and appreciates the language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon." 15. It is therefore respectfully submitted that keeping in view of the facts and given situation of the present case and the conduct of the accused and all other attending circumstances and relevant facts, the learned trial Court should have provided adequate conviction and sentence instead of inadequate conviction and sentence. It is further respectfully submitted that keeping in view of the broad object of punishment of criminals by Courts in all progressive civilized society true dictate of justice seems to taken that all the circumstances could be taken into account for determining the proper and just sentence. The sentence should bring him to the guilty for the consciousness of the offence committed against his own interest as also against the interest of the society of which he happens to be a member. The sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is not proportionate and equal to the magnitude of the offence. It is submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused/respondents may kindly be enhanced in proportionate to the requirement of the law and as per the magnitude and effect of the said offence on the society at large. The judgment, findings and 10 order of inadequate conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 324, 323 of IPC instead of Section 307 of IPC by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and incorrect. He further submits that the learned trial Court should have convicted the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under section 307 of IPC and sentenced the respondents/accused for a maximum period of 10 years particularly when the prosecution has successfully proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. There is sufÏcient material available on the shows which the involvement of the respondents/accused in the aforesaid crime, therefore, the judgment of the learned trial Court deserves to be modified to the extent of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Similarly the learned trial Court has failed to take into account the gravity of the offences and the conduct of the accused.The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that all the mandatory procedures as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code, were duly complied with by the investigating authorities. As such, the impugned judgment deserves to be set-aside. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents/accused No.2 and 3 has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned trial Court, after due appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment, which calls for no interference by this Court. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection. 18. From perusal of the order under challenge, it transpires that the 11 learned trial Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses namely, Dr. Snehalata Singh (P.W-1), Shankar Yadav (P.W-2), Rekhram Netam (P.W-3), Nikhilesh Bangre (P.W.-4), Ramkumar Sahu (P.W-5),Tarun Tiwari (P.W.5) Shekh Akhbar (P.W-6), Dayanand Sharma (P.W-7), Mithlesh Pandey (P.W-8), Parmanand Nishad (PW-9), Shiekh Mukhtar (PW- 10), Shiekh Chand (PW-11) and D.S. Dehri, (PW-12) who is Constable, has arrived at a finding with regard to the guilt of the respondents/accused. The respondents/accused has failed to lead any witness in his support and as such, the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court is justified. The evidences collected by the prosecution is sufÏcient to hold the respondents/accused guilty of the offence. There are no omissions or contradictions in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses. 19. (PW-04) injured/Nikhilesh Bangre has deposed that he knows the complainant Prateek Dhansani. The incident took place near Budha Talab Tirahe, Purani Basti, Raipur on 28th October 2014 at around 3-4 p.m.. At that time, he and Prateek Dhansani were going home from their friend Anamika Dewangan’s house. At the same time, accused Monu alias Tanjir was lighting crackers and throwing them on the road. Then one cracker burst near his motorcycle, to avoid the cracker, he turned his motorcycle to one side, due to which their accident was narrowly avoided. This witness further states that he stopped his motorcycle and asked accused Monu alias Tanjir why he was throwing crackers on the road. On this, Monu alias 12 Tanjir/accused said that a girl was born in his house, so he was bursting crackers out of happiness and Monu/accused, while arguing, pushed him from the front and kicked him on the leg. There were three-four boys along with Monu/accused who caught hold of him. He further stated that at the same time accused/Monu took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed injured/Prateek on his left thigh, after that, accused/Monu stabbed him on his left thigh and again accused/Monu stabbed Prateek on his left thigh with the knife. This statement of the witness remained unshaken in cross- examination. This witness also states that the boys who were with Monu/accused hit him on the nose and head, he does not know those boys nor were they talking to each other. When PW-04 Nikhilesh Bangre was recalled for re-examination, he stated that he does not know accused Mohd. Uwais, Mohd. Shafiq, and Chhota Abid Khan by name, but he stated that they had assaulted him on the head and nose along with accused/Monu. This witness states that accused Monu/accused and the boys who were with him left the place. PW-04 Nikhilesh Bangre further states that he and Prateek went to Purani Basti Police Station on their motorcycle. He informed his friend Anant Agrawal about the incident on the phone. They were taken for treatment to District Hospital, from there to Mekahara where he was treated. His CT scan of the head was done, which showed nothing. He does not know Akbar, later he did not find out the names of those who assaulted him along with Monu/accused. 20. The injuries of victim (PW-04) Nikhilesh Bangre and another victim 13 Prateek were examined by (PW-01) Dr. Snehlata Singh. The medical witness states that on 28.10.2014 at 4:25 PM, when Nikhilesh/injured was brought for examination, one incised wound of size 2x1 cm, muscle deep, was found on the upper part of the left thigh, another incised wound of the same size, muscle deep, was found on the lower part of the left thigh, from which bleeding was occurring. According to this witness, blood was flowing from Nikhilesh’s nose. (PW-01) Dr. Snehlata Singh further states that when Prateek Dhansani/injured was examined on the same day at 4:40 PM, one incised wound of size 2x1 cm, muscle deep, was found on the upper third of the right thigh, from which bleeding was occurring. The witness reported in (Exhibit P-1) and (Exhibit P-2) that the above injuries occurred within six hours and were caused by a hard and sharp object. According to this witness, she referred the victims to an orthopedic specialist at Medical College Raipur for knowing the nature of injuries and treatment. This witness admitted in cross-examination that she has not given any opinion regarding the nature of injuries. No other medical witness was examined by the prosecution to clarify the nature of injuries. Immediately after the incident, PW-01 Dr. Snehlata examined the injuries of victims Nikhilesh and Prateek and stated that the injuries were on those parts of the body where victim Nikhilesh Bangre himself stated and also stated about injuries on Prateek’s body. Thus, the injuries sustained by victims Nikhilesh Bangre and Prateek are fully supported by the statement of the medical witness, and it is also 14 proved that the injuries sustained by the two victims were likely caused by a sharp-edged object (knife). 21. (PW-1) Dr. Snehelata Singh further stated her deposition that on 08.12.2014, a sealed packet containing a foldable knife was brought before her for examination, whose blade length was five inches. There were blood stains on both sides of the knife blade, which was returned to the constable for chemical examination. According to this witness’s statement, the injuries sustained by Nikhilesh and Prateek could have been caused by the said knife, regarding which she gave a report marked Exhibit P-3. However, this witness admitted in cross-examination that while examining the knife, both the victims were not present, nor had she seen their injuries at that time, but from the statement given in her cross- examination, it is clear that she had already seen the injuries of the victims earlier, and based on that, she stated that the injuries were caused by the knife. Since this witness had examined the injuries of the victims earlier, on that day also she had opined that the injuries could have been caused by a sharp object. Later, when the knife was sent to the doctor for examination, since the knife is a sharp object, she reinforced her earlier opinion and stated that the injuries could have been caused by that knife. From the material evidence of the victim himself, it is also clear that he was injured by a knife, hence on this point, there arises no variation or doubt in the prosecution’s case. 22. (PW-12), D.S. Dehari, Investigating OfÏcer has proved that the spot 15 map as Exhibit P-20. He states that the accused/Monu alias Tanjir was taken into custody and, in the presence of witnesses, as per his disclosure, memorandum Exhibit P-13 was recorded, in which he stated that he would get the button-knife recovered, on the basis of which, on his identification, from his house and on his production, one steel knife of total length ten inches, blade length four and a half inches, fitted with a torch, was seized in the presence of witnesses as per the seizure memo Exhibit P-14. He had sent this knife to the doctor for query which is Exhibit P-3. However, the independent witnesses of memorandum Exhibit P-13 and seizure memo Exhibit P-14, namely P.W-.05 Tarun Tiwari and P.W.-06 Sheikh Akbar, have not supported the statement of the investigating ofÏcer. They have also not supported the prosecution, but regarding the memorandum and knife seizure, the statement of the investigating ofÏcer has remained unshaken. The Investigating OfÏcer PW-12 D.S. Dehari admitted in cross-examination that the accused/Monu alias Tanjir was taken into custody on 29.10.2014 and on the same date his memorandum statement was recorded at the police station, and that he did not give notice of presence in the police station to both witnesses of Exhibit P-13, explaining that these two witnesses were present near the police station. The Investigating OfÏcer admitted in cross-examination that he did not mention sealing of the seized article, did not prepare any sample seal and did not prepare any sketch of the seized article. But from the material evidence of the victim PW-04 Nikhilesh Bangre, the fact emerges that 16 accused/Monu had stabbed him and his companion Prateek Dhansani with a knife, hence the use of a knife by accused/Monu alias Tanjir during the commission of the offence is otherwise proved from the evidence. Considering the above situation, the fact that sealing of the seized knife is not mentioned, no sample seal was afÏxed, and no sketch was prepared does not cause any adverse effect on the prosecution’s case. Where it is proved by direct evidence that a knife was used in the crime, slight irregularity in the process of knife seizure or minor discrepancy in evidence on this point cannot destroy the effect of the fundamental evidence of the victim witness. Thus, from the unshaken evidence of the Investigating OfÏcer and the material evidence of the victim PW-04 Nikhilesh Bangre, it is proved that the knife used in the incident was seized from the possession of accused Monu alias Tanjir based on his memorandum statement Exhibit P-13 as per seizure memo Exhibit P-14. 23. (PW-5) namely Ramkumar Sahu, Head Constable has deposed against the respondents that on 28.10.2014, upon receiving telephonic information that Prateek Ghasnani and Nikhilesh had sustained injuries in an assault and were admitted to District Hospital, Raipur, he went to District Hospital, Raipur. Prateek Ghasnani reported about being assaulted by Lallu, Monu, and two other boys, on which he recorded the Dehati Nalisi (Exhibit P-9) at 16:15 hours on the same date, which bears his signature from point A to A. On 28.10.2014, at 17:00 hours, based on the Dehati Nalisi of the injured Prateek Ghasnani at Police Station Purani Basti, he 17 registered Crime No. 290/14 under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC and prepared the First Information Report (Exhibit P-10), which bears his signature from point A to A. He also submitted applications for the medical examination of Prateek Ghasnani and Nikhilesh Bangre (Exhibits P-11 and P-12), which bear his signature from point A to A. 24. This appeal by the State challenges the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 20.10.2021 whereby the accused Monu @ Tanjir has been acquitted of the charge under Section 307/34 IPC but convicted under Section 324 IPC (Count-2) and Section 25(1)(1-B) (b) of the Arms Act. The accused/respondents No.2 and 3 namely Mohd. Uvais and Mohd. Shafique respectively have been convicted under Section 323 IPC. The State contends that the act of the accused Monu @ Tanjir amounted to an attempt to murder and, therefore, Section 307 IPC ought to have been applied. 25. The medical evidence, as deposed by Dr. Snehlata Singh (PW-1), indicates that both injured persons, namely Nikhilesh and Prateek, sustained incised injuries on their thighs. The doctor has categorically stated that the injuries were not opined to be “dangerous to life” and no vital organ was affected. The prosecution has also failed to produce any material to establish that the accused/respondents intended to cause death or had the knowledge that death was likely to occur. 26. For an offence under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the act was done with such intention or knowledge 18 and under such circumstances that, if death had been caused, the act would amount to murder. Mere causing of injuries with a dangerous weapon is not sufÏcient unless the intention to kill or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death is proved. 27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held in the matter of State of M.P. v. Kanha @ Omprakash, (2023) 6 SCC 65 that the intention to kill is the crux for Section 307 IPC to held that the nature of the weapon, the part of the body targeted, and the severity of injuries are relevant considerations. Further in the matter of Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that mere grievous injury is not sufÏcient unless accompanied by an intention to cause death and lastly in the matter of Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where injuries are not on vital parts and are not declared dangerous to life, Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained. 28. Applying the aforesaid principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases (supra), in the present case, the injuries were on a non-vital part of the body, the doctor did not term them dangerous to life, and there is no evidence of intention to kill. Hence, the trial Court rightly held that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. 29. The recovery of a button-actuated knife from the possession of respondent No.1/accused Monu @ Tanjir has been duly proved, and the act of causing injury by means of this weapon squarely 19 attracts Section 324 IPC. Further, possession of the prohibited weapon without licence amounts to a clear violation of Section 4 of the Arms Act, punishable under Section 25(1)(1-B)(B). 30. The role attributed to Mohd. Uvais and Mohd. Shafique was confined to simple assaults, which is adequately covered under Section 323 of IPC and they have already undergone about 119 days and 120 days of jail sentence respectively and the trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced them to the period already undergone for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. 31. The sentence imposed by the learned trial Court warrants no interference. While determining sentence, the Court must consider the nature of the injuries, the weapon used, the circumstances of the occurrence, and the intention of the accused/respondents. 32. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly imposed a sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC for each count and one year under the Arms Act, along with a nominal fine towards respondent No.1/accused. 33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441 has held that “sentencing should reflect proportionality between the crime and the punishment, and the mitigating and aggravating circumstances must be duly considered and similarly, in Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 12 SCC 532, it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that undue leniency as well as undue harshness should be avoided, and punishment should be just, fair, and proportionate. 34. In the present case, considering that the accused/respondents have 20 already undergone substantial incarceration, the incident is of 2014. The offence does not exhibit extreme brutality or premeditation, the sentence imposed by the trial Court strikes the correct balance between deterrence and reformative justice. There is no reason to enhance the sentence as prayed by the State.
Legal Reasoning
35. Having considered the entire evidence on record and the settled legal position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court. The findings are supported by law and facts. 36. The appeal preferred by the State lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court are afÏrmed. 37. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal