1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1420 of 2016 Mahendra Bariha S/o Sahdev Bariha, aged about 25 years R/o Village: Jeerapali, Police Station: Dongripali, District: Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Dongripali, District: Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Pithawa, Dy. G.A. HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA Order on Board 04/02/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 25.10.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District: Raigarh (C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- in default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 5 months. 2. According to the case of prosecution, on 01.01.2016, the complainant Chandrakant Bariha lodged a report at Police Station: Dongripali, 2 alleging that on same day, while his brother Chetan Bariha was returning from picnic, at that time, the accused-appellant abused him with filthy language and inflicted grievous injury by stone. Thereafter, FIR was registered against the appellant and offence under Section 294 and 307 of IPC was registered against the appellant. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question prosecution examined as many as total 10 witnesses. In the statement of Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, Appellant pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter, however no defence witness was examined by the Appellant. After completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the injury caused to the victim is simple in nature, there is no bony injury caused to the victim and after the incident the victim/injured was admitted in Government Hospital only for one day and no such grievous injury has been found as defined under Section 320 of the IPC, therefore, impugned conviction under Section 307 of the IPC is unsustainable in the eye of law, which deserves to be set aside. 4. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court and contended that Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellant. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Prosecution witness, particularly, PW-2 Chetan Bariha deposed that on the date of incident, after picnic, he was going to home, at that time, the 3 accused-appellant abused him with filthy language and inflicted him with stone on face and head of the victim. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-2 Chetan Bariha has admitted in his cross-examination in Para No. 18 that on the date of incident, he had consumed liquor. 7. Dr. Sanjay Patel (PW-7) has examined the victim on 01.01.2016 and found following injuries: 1. There is a Swelling with pain in TM Joint. 2. Lacerated wound on lower limb size 3 x 2 cm. 3. Abrasion on left side of face size 3 x 3 cm. His MLC report is Ex.P-8, thereafter, he referred the patient for further treatment in Raigarh District Hospital. 8. Dr. Kameshwar Singh (PW-1) is General Surgeon has deposed that on X-Ray he found that there is no bony injury caused to the victim. X-Ray report is Ex.P/2. In his cross-examination, he stated that there is no internal injury caused to the victim. 9. It is crystal clear from the evidence that none of the Doctor who has examined the injured had given any such report that the injury caused to the injured was capable to cause his death. It is also pertinent to mention here that victim/injured was discharged from the hospital within two days and no such grievous hurt as defined under Section 320 of the IPC is inflicted on the victim. 10. Section 307 of the IPC provides 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.” 4 11. The record reveals that no injury has been caused on the vital part on the body of the victim and there is simple injury caused to the victim, therefore, it cannot be said that appellant does any act with such intention or knowledge, and murder circumstances that, if he, by that act cause death, he would be guilty of murder. 12. The injury caused to the appellant is simple in nature and Section 321 of the IPC, defines voluntarily causing hurt : “321. Voluntarily causing hurt.—Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said “voluntarily to cause hurt”. 13. It is crystal clear from the record that there is no grievous hurt caused to the victim, therefore, the act committed by the appellant fall under Section 321 of the IPC “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means”. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant under Section 307 of IPC, therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is hereby set aside and instead of Section 307 of IPC, the appellant is hereby convicted under Section 324 of the IPC. 14. As far as sentence part is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the incident was taken place 01.01.2016, the appellant is a villager and 9 years has already been elapsed and he has remained in jail from 02.01.2016 to 24.05.2016 and thereafter 25.10.2016 to 04.01.2017 i.e. for about 7 months. The appellant is facing the lis since January 2016 and there is no criminal antecedent against him and looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, the jail 5 sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 15. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence is affirmed. 16. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Saurabh