Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23046 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2031 of 2023 State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant Shishir Majumdar @ Roni S/o. Anup Kumar Majumdar, Aged About 32 Years R/o. Block No. 3, Street 40, Sector 6, Near Kalibadi Temple, Bhilai, P.S. Bhilai Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11/06 /202 5 1. Though, today the present appeal has been listed for hearing on I.A. No.01 of 2023, which is an application for condonation of dalay in filing of instant appeal, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is heard finally. 2.
Decision
Accordingly, I.A. No.01 of 2023 stands disposed of. 3. This appeal is preferred against the findings and judgment of impugned judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 32/2020, whereby the respondent/accused is held guilty RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him for a rigorous imprisonment of 03 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for further 03 months, whereas, the respondent/accused was acquitted from the charges of punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code read with section 25 & 27 of Arms Act 1959. 4. The prosecution's story in nutshell is that the accused and victim of this matter are husband & wife. When victim Prerna Majumdar coming back from her work from school in evening, accused stopped her and assaulted her with a sharp-edged weapon. In this course of attach, victim tried to save herself from her left hand but by blow of said weapon, her left hand was completely amputed from palm. The accused run away from the spot. On report, PS Supela has registered offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959 against accused under crime number 1106/2019. After completion of investigation, the concerning police has filed charge-sheet against accused before committing court. 5. On 09/09/2021, charge u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959 has been framed against accused and after his denial, trial begins. On 23/12/2022, after completion of prosecution's evidence, examination of accused under Section 313 of CrPC has been conducted and his explanations have been recorded in his own words. The accused 3 examined himself as a witness and also called another witness in his defence. 6. Learned trial Court, after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the accused/respondent for offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and acquitted from the charges of under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959. 7. Learned State counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment, findings, and the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court are neither proper nor legally sustainable and, therefore, are liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the cogent material and evidence available on record and erroneously passed the order of acquittal. 8. He further contends that the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the respondent from the charges, despite the clear and categorical statement of the victim wherein she stated that, on the date of the incident, the accused inflicted a deadly assault upon her with an intention to commit her murder. The victim’s statement is corroborated by PW-2 Rajkumar Meshram (the complainant) in his deposition. Furthermore, the police recorded the memorandum statement of the accused and recovered the weapon of offence (Banda) from his possession, wherein the accused admitted to having assaulted the victim with the said weapon. According to the medical evidence particularly the 4 MLC report seized from Dr. Suman Rao (PW-10) the victim sustained bleeding injuries on both hands, and she stated that her husband inflicted the said injuries. 9. The learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent of the offences under Sections 307, of the IPC and Sections 25, and 27 of the Arms Act and, while convicting the respondent under Section 326 of IPC, imposed an inadequate sentence. As per Section 326 of the IPC, whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing, or cutting, or any instrument which, when used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death or by means such as fire, heated substance, poison, corrosive substance, explosive, or any substance deleterious to human health shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 10. I have perused the impugned order and entire material available on record appended with this appeal. 11. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court, after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the accused/respondent for offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him for a rigorous imprisonment of 03 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- and for default in payment of fine, the accused shall undergo for rigorous imprisonment of further 03 months. 12. Considering the concurrent findings given by the trial Court, I am of 5 the view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in afÏrming the conviction of the accused/respondent for offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. Further the accused/respondent has already been in judicial custody for entire period of trial. Also the accused/respondent has already served out the jail sentence awarded by the learned trial Court i.e. rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 326 of the IPC, as there is also a report of office of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.), which shows that the accused/respondent has already served out the jail sentence and has been released from jail. 13. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan