1 CGHC010084582019 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 454 of 2019 1 - Suraj Kurre S/o Jgeshwar Prasad Kurre Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Kotmisonar, Sabriya Dera, Thana- Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Samir Singh, Advocate. For State : Shri Siddhant Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 15.09.2026 1. Though the matter was listed for further hearing, however, with the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 2. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.02.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge Janjgir Champa, in Sessions Case No.39/2018 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 307 and 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.09.17 10:09:28 +0530 2 pay which, SI for one month, and RI for one year respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 28.01.2018 the injured Virendra Lahre, PW-1, lodged a report against the appellant that at about 8:30 PM, on the request of his Nephew Anand Ram, when his father i.e. Chhangu Ram went to the house of Anand Ram to convince him in a matrimonial dispute with his wife, the appellant, who is brother in law of Anand Ram, came there with an iron rod and assaulted his father Chhangu Ram on his head. When he went there and tried to intervene, he also was being assaulted by the appellant. They received injuries on their body and were taken to the Hospital. The incident was witnessed by Tala Lahre, Dhani Ram Lahre, Chanda Bai Lahre and Anita Lahre. FIR Ex.P/1 was registered for the offence under Sections 294,506-B, 323 and 307 IPC. The injured persons were taken to hospital for their treatment. As per MLC report Ex.P/12, the injured Chhangu Ram received lacerated wound on his forehead with fracture of frontal bone which was grievous in nature whereas the injured Virendra was found injury with pain in right hand and ribs and pain in shoulder region which were simple in nature and his MLC report is Ex.P/14. The Bed Head Ticket of injured Chhangu Lahre was also seized by the police vide Ex.P/9. The injured Chhangu was admitted at SKB Hospital, Bilaspur, from 29.01.2018 to 07.02.2018. The accused was arrested on 29.01.2018 and his memorandum statement Ex.P/5 was recorded and based on his memorandum statement one iron rod was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/9. Bloodstained and plain soil and one pair of Plastic Chappal was seized vide Ex.P/7. Spot map Ex.P/2 was 3 prepared by the police whereas Ex.P/4 by the Patwari. From the injured Chhangu Ram, one jacket, one full shirt, jeans full pant and Gamchha has been seized vide Ex.P/3. Iron rod seized from the appellant was also sent for its query report to doctor who gave his query report Ex.P/16 and opined that the injury found on the body of Chhangu Ram could have been caused by the said weapon. For confirmation of blood over the clothes, it was referred for chemical examination from FSL. Bloodstained and plain soil and iron rod seized from the appellant and clothes of the injured Chhangu Ram were sent for its chemical examination to regional FSL Bilaspur from where report Ex.P/21 was received, according to which, except the plain soil, blood was found on sent articles. During medical examination of injured Chhangu Ram and his treatment, comminuted depressed fracture over frontal bone on left side was detected in CT Scan of head which is Ex.P/22. 4. The statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of CrPC. After completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the JMFC, Akaltara for the offence under Sections 294,506-B,323 and 307 IPC. The case was committed to the Sessions Court from where it has been transferred for its trial to the Trial Court. The Trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 307 and 323 IPC. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. The statement of appellant was also recorded under section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the 4 circumstances that appears against him, pleaded innocent and submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as has been mentioned in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is not challenging his conviction, however, he is claiming for reduction of the sentence awarded to the appellant as the appellant has already remained in jail for more then two years. On sudden provocation and heat of passion the incident occurred and only one blow was given upon injured Chhangu Ram for which the sentence imposed upon appellant is too excessive. The manner in which the incident occurred clearly demonstrate that the appellant was not intended to cause any grievous injury upon the head of injured Chhangu Ram. The incident is of the year 2018 and on the date of incident the appellant was aged about 21 years. The appellant is having innumerable responsibility of his family, therefore, his undergone period may be considered to be the sufficient sentence by enhancing the fine amount suitably. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant and contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In view of gravity of offence, the injuries received by the injured Chhangu Ram and considering the nature of said injury inflicted by the appellant, the appellant is not entitled for any leniency and the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced him which needs no interference. From 5 the evidence of injured witnesses, presence of appellant on the place of incident has duly been proved. 9. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court. 10. Though the appellant has not challenged his conviction, however, this court deem it appropriate to examine the evidence of injured witnesses with respect to conviction of the appellant. 11. PW-1, Virendra Lahre is one of the injured. He has stated in his evidence that injured Chhangu Ram is his father. On the date of incident, he was in his house. The sister of the appellant was married with his cousin brother. There was some misunderstanding between his cousin brother and his wife and to convince them, his father went to their house at village Kotmisonar. After hearing the heard of noise from there, he too went there and saw that the appellant was having an iron rod with him through which he was assaulting his father. When he tried to intervene, the appellant assaulted him also by which he received injury on his hand. His father received injury on his head and fell down. He came back there along with Dr. Omprakash Kurre and took his father to Police Station from where his father was referred for Hospital. He lodged report Ex.P/1. In cross examination, the involvement of the appellant in the offence in question could not be rebutted and this witness has duly proved that appellant caused injury to him and his father as well. 12. PW-2, Chhangu Ram Lahre is another injured witness who stated in his evidence that on the date of incident his Nephew Anand Ram called him that some misunderstanding occurred between him and his wife 6 and to convince her. When he went there, the appellant came there along with iron rod and assaulted him on his head. His son Virendra also came there and he too was assaulted by the appellant and thereafter the appellant fled away. In cross examination the defence could not rebut the allegations made by this witness that appellant caused injury on his head by iron rod and also assaulted his son Virendra. Both these witnesses are injured witnesses and there is nothing in their cross examination to disbelieve their evidence that they were not assaulted by the appellant. 13. PW-4, Anita Lahre, is the daughter of Chhangu Ram Lahre and PW-5, Chanda Bai Lahre is the wife of Chhangu Ram. Though these two witnessed have not seen the actual scene of assault made by the appellant, however, they proved presence of injured witnesses as well as accused in the house of Anand Lahre and voice of quarrel was coming out from there. Immediately, thereafter they saw the injured persons there having injuries over their bodies. Though PW-8, Anand Ram, in whose house the incident occurred, has turned hostile, but keeping in view the relationship between the appellant and this witness Anand Ram, and also in view of evidence of injured witnesses and other two witnesses PW-4 & PW-5, even if Anand Ram, PW-8, turned hostile, it does not have any bearing over the substantial allegation made by the injured witnesses against the appellant. 14. PW-13, Dr. Mahendra Soni, who medically examined the injured at Community Health Centre, Akaltara, have proved the MLC report Ex.P/12 & P/14. He proved that on 28.01.2018 the injured Chhangu Ram was brought before him. He medically examined him and found 7 one lacerated wound over his forehead and fracture of frontal bone. The injury was grievous in nature and he referred him to CIMS Bilaspur for further treatment. Likewise, he also examined Virendra Lahre on the same day and found pain and swelling over his right wrist and pain in left back side. His injury was simple. In cross examination, he too remain firm in saying that he noticed injuries on the body of injured persons. 15. PW-10, Dr. Gaurav Dewangan of SKB Hospital, have proved Bed Head Ticket of injured Chhangu Ram Lahre Ex.P/9. In cross examination he admits that though he has not treated the injured Chhangu Ram, but he is working at SKB Hospital and proved Ex.P/9. 16. PW-15 Dr. Kumar Devasis, is the Radiologist, who conducted CT Scan of the head of injured Chhangu Lahre and gave report Ex.P/22. He stated that after CT Scan of Chhangu Lahre he found fracture on his frontal bone and hemorrhagic contusion on that part of head. In cross examination, he denied the suggestion that if any person fall on floor, he could receive such injury on the head as has been noticed in the body of injured Chhangu Lahre. He admits that he himself has done CT Scan of injured Chhangu. 17. From all these evidences, the prosecution has proved that it is the appellant who caused grievous injury on the head of injured Chhangu Ram and simple injury to Virendra. The grievous injury of Chhangu has been proved by the treating doctors as well as PW-15, Dr. Kumar Devashish who proved CT Scan report and found fracture on the frontal bone of his head. Thus, causing grievous injury on the most vital part of the injured Chhangu i.e. on head including fracture, amounts to 8 attempt to commit murder by assaulting him with iron rod. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 and 323 IPC is found to be based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. 18. So far as sentence part is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287 has laid down the law with respect to awarding sentence to the accused persons. In paragraph 9 it was held as under: “9. Western jurisdiction 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 Micodotis, 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 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.' In the same strain a British Buddhist-Christian Judge, speaking to a BBC reporter underscored the role of compassion : "Circuit Judge Christmas Humphreys told the BBC reporter recently that a judge looks 'at the man in the dock in a different way : not just a criminal to be punished, but a fellow human being, another form of life who is also a form of the same one life as oneself.' In the context of karuna and punishment for karma the same Judge said : 'The two things are not incompatible. You do punish him for what he did, but you bring in a quality of what is sometimes called mercy, rather than an emotional hate against the man for doing something harmful. You feel with him; that is what compassion means." 9 19. Further, in the matter of Raj Bala Vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2016 (1) SCC 463 in paragraph 1 & 2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “1. In Gopal Singh v. State of Uttrakahand[1], while focusing on the gravity of the crime and the concept of proportionality as regards the punishment, the Court had observed:- "18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value-based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner.We may hasten to add that there can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court.The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also have been stated in a number of pronouncements by this Court. On such touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed. The discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence of just punishment." [Emphasis supplied] 2. Seven years prior to that, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat [2], it has been held that:- "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. 10 Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be-as it should be-a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N.[3]" [Emphasis supplied] And again:- "The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal"." 20. Considering aforesaid judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned cases and also in view of facts and circumstances of the present case, the age of appellant at the time of incident, the relationship between the parties and the manner in which the assault was made by the appellant upon the injured persons and also the nature of injuries, this court deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant for the alleged offence for the period already undergone by him by enhancing the fine amount. 21. Since the sentence awarded for the offence under Section 323 IPC has already been undergone by the appellant, therefore, the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 323 is maintained. However, with respect to sentence awarded for the offence under Section 307 11 IPC is concerned, his sentence is reduced for the period already undergone by him with fine of Rs.25,000/- which shall be payable by the appellant within a period of two months from today before the concerned trial court. In failure of deposit of fine amount, the appellant shall undergo further RI for three months. The fine amount already deposited by the appellant, if any, shall be adjusted towards total fine amount. The fine amount so deposited by the appellant shall be paid to injured Chhangu Ram Lahre, PW-2, as compensation as provided under Section 395 of The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall continue for a further period of six months in view of provisions contained in Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 22. With the aforesaid modification/reduction of sentence the appeal is partly allowed. 23. The trial court record be send back forthwith along with copy of this judgment for necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder