1 2025:CGHC:8076 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 405 of 2007 1 - Santosh @ Bhurwa, aged about 22 years, Caste Gond, Son of Jamuna, Resident of village Dongariya, Police Station Pendra, District Bilaspur ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Pendra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Ashok Soni, Advocate. For the State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) (Judgment on Board) (14.02.2025) 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 389 2 of 2006 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road while acquitting the appellant under Section 307 IPC convicted and sentenced him under section 326 & 294 IPC as under : U/s 326 of IPC : RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 1 month U/s 294 of IPC : RI for 1 month 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Supet Singh is a farmer and is resident of village Dongaria Police Station Pendra. His goat was hidden by accused appellant Santosh alias Bhurwa of same village in his house about 10 days before the incident occurred on 18.06.2006. Having come to know about this, the complainant brought his goat from the house of accused, due to which, quarrel took place. Thereafter on the date of incident on 18.6.2006 at about 9 p.m., when complainant Supet Singh was talking with one Prakash Gond near his house, at that time accused Santosh @ Buruwa came there and abusing complainant in filthy language hit on his head with the dice of Tangia, due to which, the complainant sustained head injury on left parietal region in size of 3 cm x .5 cm x bone deep and there was profuse bleeding the injury. On raising voice by the complainant, Chandan Singh, Jhamel Singh, Anil and his son Vishambar Singh and Shivbharan rushed there and saw the incident. A report was lodged by the complainant in Police Station Pendra, on which, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-12. Complainant Supet Singh was examined by the Doctor who gave medical report by Ex.P05 and further X-Ray was also done in 3 which fracture was found on the scull of the complainant. The X-Ray report was produced as Ex.P-6. During the investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded and further after completing other procedural formalities, the charge sheet was filed. 3. In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution has in all examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and the victim was not found to have been injured by any sharp weapon, hence the case does not fall under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the conviction of the appellant u/s 326 IPC is not sustainable and he be acquitted of the said offence. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that after considering the facts and evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant, which needs no interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records. 4 7. Doctor H.K. Tanwar (PW-4) has stated that he conducted the medical examination of the injured Supet Singh on 19/06/2006 and gave report (Exhibit P-5) and X-ray report (Exhibit P-6) of the examination is also available according to which, there was a lacerated wound on the left parietal region of his head admeasuring 3 x .5 cm x bone deep from which blood was oozing. There was pain on pressing the surrounding surface. In the X-ray examination, it was found that his left parietal bone was broken. Thus, Doctor Tanwar has stated that the head injury sustained by Supet Singh was of serious nature which was caused by a hard and blunt object. 8. Injured complainant Supet Singh (PW-9) has confirmed the prosecution case and stated that on the date of the incident, when he was talking to Prakash Singh (PW-10) near the door at night, the appellant came with a tangia and calling him “Madarchod, Saale” hit him on the head with the dice of the tangia due to which blood started flowing and he was soaked in blood and became unconscious. His statement stood firm by the First Information Report (Exhibit P-12) written by him and the statement of Prakash Singh (PW-10), a witness present at the scene, which could not be contradicted. Thus, it has been proved that the appellant voluntarily caused serious injury to Supet Singh by hitting him on the head with the dice of the tangia. 9. In this case, it is clear from the medical evidence that after examining the tangia which was said to have been seized from the appellant, Dr. Tanwar (PW-4) has given a report. According to which the 5 injury found on the victim could have been caused by that tangia. However, it is also clear that the injury sustained by the victim is not caused by a sharp weapon but by a hard and blunt object and the injured Supet Singh himself has said that the appellant had hit him with the dice of the tangia. In such a situation, when there is no injury caused by a sharp weapon, then the case for grevious injury caused to the victim is covered under Section-325 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section-326 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Therefore, on the above grounds, the conviction of the appellant is converted to Section-325 of IPC from Section-326 IPC. However, the conviction and sentence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed. 11. Now coming to the sentence part, section-325 Indian Penal Code is considered. The appellant is said to be in judicial custody for only 05 days. The defense lawyer has prayed to release the appellant on payment of fine amount by holding that the sentence is undergone to the period which he already suffered in custody, which has been opposed by the learned State Counsel. 12. Considering the manner in which the appellant has used a weapon like Tangia to hit on the head and caused grievous injury, judicial custody of only 05 days is not found to be appropriate. Since the case is of about 18 years ago and looking to the nature of injury caused 6 to the victim, the sentence of the appellant is reduced from 03 years to 01 year. The amount of fine is confirmed. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. 14. The period for which the appellant was in judicial custody should be adjusted in his sentence period. The bail bond of the appellant is forfeited. He is directed to surrender before the trial court within 10 days and shall undergo the remaining sentence. 15. A copy of the judgment should be sent to the trial court and the concerned jail superintendent for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao