1 2025:CGHC:27009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 826 of 2005 1 - (Abated) Nanhu Satnami (Died) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 28-02-2025. 2 - Ganpat Satnami S/o Gunsai Satnami Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Savitripar, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Sampat Satnami S/o Gunsai Satnami Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Savitripar, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Sukhad @ Shivpal S/o Phoolsai Satnami Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Savitripar, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Sakalu Satnami S/o Dalit Satnami Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Savitripar, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 6 - Naresh Satnami S/o Nanhu Satnami Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Savitripar, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 7 - Mahettar Satnami S/o Manki Satnami Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Savitripar, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 8 - (Abated) Satya Kumar Satnami (Died) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 28-02-2025. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, G. A. and Ms. Neeta Tulsani, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 23/06/2025 2 1. What is assailed in this appeal is to a judgment dated 21.10.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No.322/2004 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (CG) by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentences U/s 147, 148, 149 r/w Section 323, 326 of IPC 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years RI and Rs.200/-, 300/-, 500/-, 1000/- fine was also imposed on each of appellants and in default of payment of fine the further RI for one month, 11/2 months, 2 months and 4 months respectively. 2. The case of prosecution in nutshell is that on 17.07.2004 at about 2.00 pm the appellants have assaulted Devnath with the help of stick on the dispute of woods and when Rikhiram, Chhabilal, Roshan, Makardhwaj tried to intervene, they beat them up as well. The appellant Naresh assaulted Dulorin Bai with sharp object. The incident was witnessed by Gajpati and Sushil. The report was lodged by Baratram (PW-1). On the basis of which a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 506-B, 323 and 324 of IPC was registered against accused/appellants. The injured was sent for medical examination. Investigation was set on motion. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed following by framing of charge in which the appellants denied the charges and claimed for trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 42 documents. Statement of accused/appellants under Section 313 CrPC was recorded in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. By the judgment impugned, learned trial Court has held the accused/appellants guilty and imposed the sentence as described above which is challenge before this Court by the appellants. During pendency of appeal appellant No.1 Nanhu Satnami and appellant No.8 Satya Kumar Satnami have passed away and their appeals stood abated. 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the prosecution was not able to bring home the guilt of the accused/appellants beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the statement of witnesses is full of contradictions and omissions and cannot be relied upon to sustain the conviction. He submits that the conviction of the appellants under Section 149 is bad in law as it was not established on record that there was a common object to commit the aforesaid offence and their conviction under Section 326 of IPC is also bad in law because the alleged grievous injury caused to Duloran Bai and she has not been examined. It is further stated that though according to prosecution the knife is also used but the injury caused by the knife is simple in nature, therefore, the conviction of the appellants cannot travel beyond Section 325 of IPC. He further submits that the appellants remained in jail for about 24 days and the incident had occurred on 17.07.2004, during pendency of the appeal, the appellants were granted bail by this Court, they have never misused the liberty granted to them and after their conviction their sentence was suspended by this Court and they have been duly following the conditions. The surviving appellants were aged about 35, 30, 40, 36, 22 & 40 years respectively at the time of incident and they have faced lis for more than 20 years. In light of the above, in the event if this Court is not convinced, the sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to period already undergone by them. He submits that by the flux of time they must have reformed in the society and one opportunity may be given to them and also submits that the benefit of Probation of offenders Act, 1958 (for short “Act of 1958”) may be extended to them. 6. On the other hand State counsel supports the judgment impugned and submits that the injury sustained on Dulorin Bai is proved by Dr. Jayshri Sahu who found fracture on her nostrils and other witnesses have also stated that Dulorin Bai was assaulted, even she was not examined but from the evidence gathered, the conviction of the appellants is based on proper appreciation of evidence and meritorious finding does not require any interference by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4 8. The first question which comes for determination before this Court as to whether the appellants are author of crime or not. The submissions of learned counsel for appellants is that the conviction of appellants and with the aid of Section 149 IPC is bad in law. It is settled position of law that in order to attracts Section 149 of IPC, individual overt act is not required to be looked into. The only ingredient which the prosecution is required to prove that the offenders are the member of some unlawful assembly and with common object they have caused the offence. From perusal of record particularly looking to the statement of Baratram (PW-1), Resham Lal (PW- 2), Chabilal (PW-4) and Devnath (PW-5) who categorically described the happening of the incident and overt act played by the respective appellants. In light of the above, in light of judgment of Constitution Bench and in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Masalti Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1965 SC 202, the submission of learned counsel for appellants is liable to be rejected. 9. Now the question comes before this Court as to whether the appellants can be convicted and sentence in what manner. In this context, the second submission that the injured Dulorin Bai has not been examined, is liable to be rejected in light of medical evidence available on record and also the oral testimony of other witnesses who have stated that she was assaulted by the appellants. The following injuries found on the person of the victim persons:- Sr. No. Name Injuries Particulars 1. Devnath (PW-5) • Cut wound in right Side of the head • Cut wound in back side of the head • Abrasion in right hand • Swelling in left hand Injuries are simple in nature 2. Chabilal (PW-4) • Cut wound in back side of the head • Cut wound in left Side of the head • Swelling in forehead Injuries are simple in nature 3. Dulaurin Bai • Cut wound in nose • Incise wound on left side of head • Swelling on left hand Injuries on nose is simple in nature rest of the injuries are simple in nature 4. Rikhiram • Cut wound in left Side of the head • Swelling on left hand Injuries are simple in nature 5. Makardhwaj • Cut wound in back side of the head. Injuries are simple in 5 • Swelling on right hand and shoulder nature 6. Resham • Abrasion in right hand Injuries are simple in nature 10. This has also been proved by Dr. Jayshree Sahu (PW-6) and X-ray report of Dulorin Bai is Ex. P-27 & 28. However the grievous injuries have been caused by use of stick which is in opinion of this Court cannot be said to be a dangerous weapon in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. R. Kariyappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2018) 18 SCC 801 in which the Supreme Court has converted the sentence of Section 326 IPC to Section 325 IPC wherein the injuries was caused by wooden stick on the eyesight of injured in that case. In the case in hand, it does not appear that the injury was caused by hard and blunt object though knife was used however, the medical evidence suggest that the injury caused by knife is simple in nature, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the conviction of the appellants under Section 326 of IPC is required interference instead of it the appellants are convicted under Section 325 IPC. Therefore barring the above modification, the conviction of appellants on all other sections is hereby maintained. 11. This leads me to alternative submission of Mr. Verma as to whether the sentence could be reduced and the appellants could be given benefit of Act of 1958. Admittedly the incident had occurred on 17.07.2004 and the appellants were granted bail by learned trial Court and after their convictions, their sentences have also been suspended. It is not a case of prosecution that during pendency of appeal, the appellants were involved in any other criminal activities or had any previous criminal antecedents and according to learned counsel for the parties, they are not having any criminal antecedents. The surviving appellants were aged about 35, 30, 40, 36, 22 & 40 years respectively at the time of incident now they must have reached to a mature age and settled in their life. It is also a case that the injured Dulorin Bai has not remained in hospital even for a day. The appellants remained in jail for about 24 days and they are not branded criminals. Overall facts & circumstances indicates that no harm to society at large is likely to cause in case the appellants are prematurely 6 released. In view of the above discussion, this court is inclined to reduce the sentence to 3 months for all the offences. Apart from this, if the facts of the case are read along with the provision contained in Section 4 of Act of 1958 and in light of the judgment passed by this Court in case of Bhagat Ram & Others Vs. State of M.P., reported in AIR Online 2023 Chh 103= ILR 2023 Chhattisgarh 701, the accused/appellants entitle themselves to derive the benefit of Section 4 of Act of 1958. 12. In aforesaid view of the matter, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellants shall get the benefit of Section 4 of Act of 1958. Appellants shall file one surety to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- each coupled with personal bond within 90 days from the date of this judgment to the effect that they shall not commit any offence and shall observe good behaviors and shall maintain peace during the period of one year, if there is breach of any of the conditions, they will be subjected themselves to undergo sentence imposed by this Court before the trial Court. 13. Record of the trial Court be sent back alongwith this Judgment for information and necessary compliance. 14. Appeal thus allowed in part as indicated above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.07.01 12:04:21 +0530