High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 CRA No.539/2016 2025:CGHC:44684 NAFR AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.09.04 17:36:28 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 539 of 2016 Smt. Kunti Devi W/o Vijay Gupta Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Manpur Baigapara, P.S. Chalgali, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. Civil District Surguja Ambikapur, Revenue District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant The State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chalgali, District Balrampur Ramanujgunj, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Swapnil Keshari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 02/09/2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 08/04/2016, passed by the learned Special Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), SC & ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act in Special Sessions Case No. 62/2011, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as Under:- 2 CRA No.539/2016 Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, R.I. for 2 years U/s 450 of IPC R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, R.I. for 6 months Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution, is that on 25.02.2011, the complainant Ramdas PW-7 and his son Ramesh had gone to the field and when they were returning, Ratodevi PW-5 informed him that Kunti Devi/appellant had entered into his house and assaulted his daughter Paanpati/injured PW-8 with a tangi (axe) on her head, neck, cheek, and temple, causing her to lose consciousness due to bleeding. When they returned to house, they saw that his daughter lying injured and blood was oozing out from her body. Thereafter, on being questioned to her, she stated that while she was eating food, the appellant had assaulted her with an axe and also abused her in filthy language. The incident was witnessed by
Legal Reasoning
Ratodevi PW-5. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged vide Ex.P-5 against the appellant and after completing the investigation, final report was prepared. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein she has pleaded her innocence and false implication in the matter. 4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and 3 CRA No.539/2016 documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced her as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the learned trial Court ought to have considered this fact that, there was no motive to assault the injured and the trial court vide para 9 of its judgment has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive in this case. The evidence collected by the prosecution, it is clearly established that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The whole case is based upon conjecture and surmises and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellant is too harsh. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 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 4 CRA No.539/2016 has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. Dr. Narendra Pratap Singh, PW-1, who conducted the medical examination of injured-Panpati, found the following injuries.:- An incised wound measuring 3.5 cm × 1 cm located on the upper part of the nose. An incised wound measuring 6 cm × 1 cm located below the left eye An incised wound measuring 8 cm × 1.5 cm located below the left cheek. An incised wound measuring 4 cm × 2 cm located below the left ear. An incised wound measuring 5 cm × 1 cm located on the left side of the neck. An incised wound measuring 6 cm × 1 cm located on the left shoulder. Two incised wounds, one measuring 4 cm × 1 cm and the other measuring 6 cm × 1 cm, located on the upper part of the head (vertex region). 9. PW-8 Panpati/injured stated in her evidence that on the date of incident, the appellant came to her house carrying an axe and said, "Let's go to the forest to collect firewood." then, the victim refused to go by saying that she had work to do. Thereafter, the appellant had asked about her father, to which, she replied that he had gone for work. Then, the appellant stepped outside the 5 CRA No.539/2016 house and suddenly came back in and assaulted her on the head and hand by means of axe. When she cried for help, neighbors Shanichari, Rato and others came to the spot and she was taken to hospital. 10.PW-5 Rato, stated in her evidence that she has no knowledge about the incident. Even after being declared hostile and asked leading questions, the witness denied all the facts mentioned in the police statement. PW-2, Manbaso Cherwa also stated in her evidence that she has no knowledge about the incident. This witness was declared hostile, and upon being asked leading questions, she denied all the facts mentioned in the police statement. 11.At this Stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 307 of the IPC which states as under:- “307. Attempt to murder - 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. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death. 6 CRA No.539/2016 12.The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC are:- "(i) that the death of a human being was attempted: (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by. or in consequence of the act of the accused; and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as: (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excused for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury." 13.The Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and others (1988) 4 SCC 551 has held that under Section 307 of the IPC what the court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the provision. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. It has been further held that the nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive 7 CRA No.539/2016 for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. 14.Similarly, in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao and others (2003) 10 SCC 434, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that for the application of Section 307 of the IPC, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained, the manner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 of the IPC. It has been observed by their Lordships in para 21 of the report as under: - "21. In offence under Section 307 all the ingredients of the offence of murder are present except the death of the victim. For the application of Section 307, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained, the manner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 IPC. But since sentence and fine have been maintained, alteration of conviction notwithstanding no modification of sentence need be made. ..." 15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Parsuram Pandey and others v. State of Bihar (2004) 13 SCC 189 has also held that to constitute an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, two ingredients of the offence must be present: (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and (b) the doing of 8 CRA No.539/2016 an act towards it. It has been held in paragraph 15 of the report as under: - 15. To constitute an offence under Section 307 two ingredients of the offence must be present: (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and (b) the doing of an act towards it. For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or the knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. The section clearly contemplates an act which is done with intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. In the absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of Section 307. there can be no offence, "of attempt to murder". Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence, as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other factors...." 16. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jage Ram and others v. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 366 has laid down the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and held as under: “12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder; and (ii) the act done by the accused. 9 CRA No.539/2016 The burden is on the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given, etc. XXX XXX 14. Having regard to the weapon used for causing the head injuries to Sukhbir, nature of injures, situs of the injury and the severity of the blows, the courts below recorded concurrent findings convicting the second appellant under Section 307 IPC. In our considered view, the conviction of the second appellant Rajbir Raju under Section 307 IPC is unassailable." 17.Reverting to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of the principles law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in above cited judgments, it is quite vivid that the injured Panpati PW-8 stated in her evidence that when she was at home alone, the appellant came and asked her to go forest for 10 CRA No.539/2016 cutting firewood and when she refused to go that she had work to do, the appellant had gone outside the house and again came inside, assaulted Panpati with an axe, threatened her to kill and abused her in filthy language. On being shouted, neighbors came and she was taken to hospital for treatment. 18.As per the evidence of Dr. Narendra Pratap PW-1, he stated that the injuries sustained by the injured were caused by hard and blunt object. The appellant used an axe i.e. tangi to inflict injuries upon the victim Panpati, which is sharp edged weapon. The injuries were inflicted on sensitive parts of the body of injured Panpati i.e. the head. The above evidence shows that the appellant did not merely strike once but delivered multiple blow on the head and face, one on the neck, and one on the shoulder. The blows caused two incised wounds on the upper part of the head and fracture of the nasal/sinus bone. These cumulative circumstances collectively lead to a strong and singular inference that the appellant had an intention to commit the murder of injujred-Panpati. 19.Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of injured-Panpati, as well as the medical evidence of Dr. Narendra Pratap PW-1, the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question is clearly established, this Court does not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 and 11 CRA No.539/2016 450 of IPC. Thus, the same is hereby maintained. 20.As regards sentence, in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in para-9 as follows: "9. Western jurisprudence and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817: "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested: 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it'. George Nicodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education. It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub- culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social 12 CRA No.539/2016 defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw: 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield: "If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences” 21.Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Pramod Kumar Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023) 9 SCC 810 has reiterated the above facts and also placed reliance upon the decision rendered in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra). 22.In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and Pramod Kumar Mishra (supra); keeping in view the fact that the appellant has already served the jail sentence of about 3 years 6 months; and also considering the fact that the appellant is a lady and aged about 41 years at present, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would serve if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by her. 23.Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 and 450 of IPC is maintained however, her jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by her. Whereas, the 13 CRA No.539/2016 fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 24.Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 25.The appellant is on bail. She need not to surrender. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by her 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. 26.Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep