High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:1671 NAFR RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.01.17 17:25:29 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2 of 2020 Madhav @ Madho Yadav S/o Lakhan Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Nimoura, Police Station Rakhi District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Rakhi, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
hospital for about 6 days only. Having considered this fact and other nature of the injuries, I feel inclined to interfere with the sentence imposed by learned trial Court particularly for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 13. Accordingly, sentence imposed by the trial Court vide impugned judgment under Section 506 part-II of IPC is affirmed, but, sentence imposed for the offence under Section 307 of IPC against the appellant, is reduced from 10 years to 6 years rigorous imprisonment. Fine amount for both the offences and default stipulations imposed by learned trial Court is upheld. 6 14. In view of above, this appeal is partly allowed and sentence part of the impugned judgment is modified accordingly. 15. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the learned trial Court concerned for its compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar
Arguments
: Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice ) Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi 10/01/2025 Order on Board 1. 2. With the consent of both the parties, heard the matter finally. This appeal is arising out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.9.2019 passed by the Upper Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Case No.219/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in following manner:- Sr. No. Conviction Sentence 01. Section 506 part-II of IPC 1 year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 1 month. 2 02. Section 307 of IPC 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 3 months. Both the substantive jail sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that, on 22.7.2015 in the morning at 9.00 am, when victim Ranjeet Maheshwari had gone to meet his friend Om Prakash Lahri at his workplace i.e. Administrative Academy, Nimora, then appellant came from behind and abused him in filthy language, threatened to kill him and also assaulted upon the victim by iron rod on his head. Victim sustained grievous injuries. Looking to the incident, Sanju Ratre, Pramod, Sevak Ram, Om Prakash Lahri and others came there and interfered between them, thereafter, appellant fled from the spot. Victim was taken to the Ramkrishna Care Hospital, where his injuries were treated, MLC report, City Scan etc. were obtained. He remained in the hospital from 22.7.2015 to 27.7.2015. Dehati Nalisi (Ex. P-5) was lodged on the same day, subsequently, FIR was lodged. During course of the investigation, police recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., prepared spot map, blood stained cloths of victim were seized vide Ex.P-7. Appellant was arrested on 23.7.2015 vide arrest memo (Ex. P-17). His memorandum statement was recorded, iron rod was seized from his possession vide seizure memo (Ex.P-11), discharge ticket and medical documents of victim were seized. Blood stained cloths of victim, iron rod, blood stain soil and plain soil were sent for chemical examination and Chemical Examination Report vide Ex. P/19 was received. After investigation, charge sheet under Section 294, 307 & 326 of IPC was filed against the appellant before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, who committed the case to the learned 3 Sessions Judge. During the trial, case was transferred by the Sessions Judge to Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur. 4. Learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 294, 506 part-II & Section 307 of IPC, which were denied by the appellant. To bring home the charge, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, he denied all the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution’s evidence. Learned trial Court, on due appreciation of evidence, acquitted appellant from the offence under Section 294 of IPC, but convicted and sentenced him under Section 307 & 506 part-II of IPC, as has been stated in opening paragraph. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, altercation occurred between both the parties, victim had also assaulted the appellant, as such, alleged assault occurred in the heat of anger. He would further submit that the matter relates only to one or two blow made by appellant, that too, without intention to kill victim else the blow might have been caused many times. He further submitted that the victim was admitted for the said injuries only for about 6 days and Doctor (PW-10) has not clearly opined that injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He would further submit that, the appellant has been convicted for maximum sentence of 10 years and 1 year rigorous imprisonment for both the offence. Sentence has been directed to run concurrently. The appellant has already served jail sentence for about 5 years 9 months, therefore, the appellant may be sentenced for the period already undergone by him, hence, he submitted that, if appellant is held guilty for said offence, then, he may be sentenced for the period already undergone by him. 4 6. Learned State counsel, while supporting the impugned judgment, would submit that, the judgment is based on cogent evidence and eye-witnesses’ evidence also, therefore, it does not require any interference of this Court. 7. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record along with record of the trial Court. Victim -Ranjeet Maheshwari (PW-1) has clearly deposed that at the time of incident, when he had gone to meet his friend Om Prakash Lahri, at that time, appellant came from behind and assaulted him by iron rod and also threatened to kill him, therefore, he sustained various head injuries and also got fainted. He was admitted in the Ramkrishna Care Hospital on the same day. 9. Sevak Ram (PW-6) is eye-witness. He has supported case of prosecution. Nothing has been brought in the cross-examination of victim (PW-1) and Sevak Ram (PW-6) to discard their said statement. Other alleged eye- witnesses namely; Om Prakash Lahri (PW-2), Pramod Jangde (PW-3), Sanju Ratre (PW-4) and Shersingh (PW-5) have turned hostile, but they have supported the fact that when they reached on the spot, they saw victim in injured condition, as he had sustained injuries on his head. 10. Dr. S. N. Madhariya (PW-10) had examined and treated victim. He has deposed in his statement that, on examination of City Scan of head, face cervical spine of victim, following injuries were found vide Ex.P-15:- Brain- 1. Fracture right parietal bone. 2. Fracture bilateral frontal, bilateral supra-orbital, bilateral maxillary antrum & left zygomatic arch. Face- 1. Left proptosis. 2. Left globe rupture with hematoma. 3. Bilateral eyelid contusion hematoma. 4. Bilateral maxillary haemosinuses. 5 Cervical Spine- 1. The normal curvature of the spine is straightened -s/o Paraspinal muscle spasm. Further in query, he has reported vide Ex.P-16 that, if proper treatment would not have been provided to the appellant in time, then injuries caused to the victim, would have been danger to his life. Although, this witness has admitted in his cross-examination that the injury sustained by victim on his face would have been caused when a person fell, but he had further stated that injury would be caused on the side only by which person fell, the pattern of injuries sustained by victim could not have caused in such falling. Nothing has been brought in his cross-examination to discard the statement of victim that those injuries were sustained on assault made by appellant. 11. On minute observation of evidence brought by prosecution and particularly injuries sustained by the victim, which has very well proved by the prosecution’s witnesses and medical evidence, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in holding guilty to the appellant for the offence under Section 506 part-II and 307 of IPC, therefore, conviction part of the judgment passed by learned trial Court is upheld. 12. So far as punishment is concerned, the appellant was admitted in the