1 2025:CGHC:28108 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 571 of 2008 1 - Shibo Mali, S/o Ganga Ram, Aged about 50 years, Occupation- Labourer R/o Village- Jampara, Police Station- Deobhog, District- Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Deobhog District- Raipur. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Patil, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 26.06.2025 1. The appellant in this appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.03.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 52/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:- 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 324 of the IPC R.I. for 3 years Under Section 323 of the IPC R.I. for 1 year (both the sentences to run concurrently) 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.08.2007, son of Gundhar namely Bireshwar went to work in the field. For which, his mother Phoolmati had gone to the field with some refreshments and when she reached there, she saw that the accused- Sibo Mali was cutting the boundary of their field and merging it with his field. Phoolmati opposed him from cutting the soil. On this, the accused hit Phoolmati on her head and wrists of both the hands with the iron spade and caused injury to her. When Bireshwar tried to intervene, he was also assaulted by the accused/appellant with stick. Due to the said assault, Phoolmati sustained injuries on her head, hands and eyes. Thereafter, report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by the complainant- Gundhar at police station- Devbhog. Medical examination of the injured was done and for better treatment, injured- Phoolmati was referred to the Medical College Hospital Raipur where she was admitted from 26.08.2007 to 01.09.2007. During investigation, seizures were made. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the Magistrate Court for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC against the appellant. Thereafter, the matter was committed to this Court on transfer for trial. Learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC to which, appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 3 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In his defence, the accused/appellant did not adduce any evidence. 4. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 307 of IPC & convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court erred in holding the appellant guilty for voluntarily causing hurt to the victim- Phoolmati bai and thus erred in holding appellant guilty for the offence under sections 324 and 323 of I.P.C. The son of the victim was present at the time of incident but unfortunately he is not identified as to what means appellant has caused injuries to the victim. The medical expert do not support the case of the prosecution however, Dr. A. Vasim was the important witness who has not been examined by the prosecution regarding seriousness of the injuries. Statements of the prosecution witnesses are full of omissions and contradictions. Learned trial Court did not appreciate oral and documentary evidence properly and gave wrong finding. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under the aforesaid section as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, considering the 4 fact that the appellant has remained in jail for about 8 months; the incident took place in 2007; this appeal is pending since 2008 and as of now the appellant is aged about 67 years and he is suffering from serious illness. Therefore, the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court having appreciated the overall oral and documentary evidence, has rightly recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being sans merits is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is clear from the record of the trial Court that the learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC against the appellant. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 307 of IPC and convicted him for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC. 9. Phoolmati (P.W.-2) stated that on the date of incident, when she went to her agricultural land with some refreshments and when she reached there, she saw that the appellant was cutting the boundary of their field and merging it with his field. When she opposed the appellant for doing the same, then the appellant assaulted her with spade. 10. Bireshwar (P.W.-3) stated that on the date of incident, when his mother- Phoolmati (P.W.-2) tried to oppose the appellant from merging their filed into his filed, upon which, the appellant assaulted his mother- 5 Phoolmati (P.W.-2) with stick or spade and when he tried to intervene, the appellant also assaulted him with stick. 11. Gundhar (P.W.-1) supported the statements of both the witnesses. 12.Madhusudan (P.W.-5) and Bhuwaneshwar (P.W.-8) stated that they saw the injuries on the body of Fulmati (P.W.-2) and Bireshwar (P.W.-3) and on being asked, they told them the said injuries have been caused by the appellant/accused. 13.Dr. Anju Sonwani (P.W.-7) medically examined both the injured i.e. Phoolmati (P.W.-2) and Bireshwar (P.W.-3) & found injuries on their body. She gave her report vide Ex. P/5 and P/6 in this regard. Thus, statements of both the injured were supported by medical evidence. 14. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the statements of prosecution witnesses as well as medical evidence, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 307 of IPC and convicted him under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence of witnesses as well as medical evidence. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 323 and 324 of IPC is affirmed. 15. As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2007 and nearly 18 years have rolled by since then; appellant is aged about 67 years and is suffering from serious illness; he remained in jail for about 8 months, the appellant is on bail since long and did not misuse the liberty so granted, hence taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC to the appellant by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him 6 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 323 and 324 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him 17. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 18. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV