1 2025:CGHC:4944 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 950 of 2005 Shyam Lal, S/o Chaitram @ Bunti Dhuri, aged about 26 years, R/o Village-Kormi, PS Chakarbhata, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through PS Chakarbhata, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 28/01/2025 The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in ST No.217/2005 whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months and pay a fine of Rs.500/- or else to suffer additional one month's RI. 2 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.5.2005 at around 10.30 pm while the complainant Ramprasad (PW-1) was washing his hands and feet in the courtyard, the accused/appellant came from behind and assaulted him on his head, back and arm with a sharp edged weapon sword. Hearing the screams of the complainant, his wife Kanchan Bai came out of the house and seeing her, the accused fled from there with sword. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to the hospital and FIR was lodged against the accused. He remained hospitalized in CIMS, Bilaspur from 16.5.2005 to 23.5.2005. During investigation, bloodstains clothes of the complainant were seized, statements of the witnesses were recorded and on the memorandum of the accused the weapon of offence knife was seized, spot map was prepared, the seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and after completing the usual investigation, charge sheet under Section 307 of IPC was filed against the accused followed by framing of charge accordingly by learned trial court, to which the accused abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by him in defence. 3 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. The statements of PW-1 Ramprasad and PW-2 Kanchan Bai do not support the prosecution case and their evidence are contrary to the medical evidence of PW-7 Dr. Dharmendra Kumar and PW-8 Dr. George M. Xaxa. According to the complainant and his wife, the complainant was assaulted with sword whereas the medical evidence shows that he was caused injuries by hard and blunt object. PW-1 & PW-2 have stated that at the time of incident it was dark and the appellant assaulted with sword. Their statement is not reliable because if it was dark, identification of the assailant was not possible and secondly, the police seized a knife on the memorandum of the appellant and not sword. This apart, there is also no motive attributed to the appellant for commission of the alleged crime. The FIR was lodged with a delay of 11 days after the incident without any proper explanation. Thus, in view of above, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court merely on the basis of conjecture and surmises held the appellant guilt under Section 323 of IPC. 4 Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that if this ultimately comes to the conclusion that conviction of the appellant is proper, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the incident which took place in the year 2005, the appeal is pending since 2005, he was on bail during trial and even during pendency of this appeal but never misused the liberty while on bail, his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Section 307 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court while acquitting him of the said charge, convicted and sentenced him under Section 323 of IPC as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment 09. PW-1 Ramprasad, complainant, states that on the date of incident while he was washing his hands and feet in front of his house, 5 the accused/appellant came out of the house of Bhagwati (sister of the complainant) and assaulted him from behind with sword on his shoulder and when he turned back, the accused made a second attack which hit his head. Thereafter, the accused assaulted on his left arm and back also. In cross-examination he remained firm on his statement. 10. PW-2 Kanchan Bai, wife of the injured complainant, also supported the prosecution case and stated that hearing the scream of her husband she came out of the house and saw the accused assault her husband with a sword. When she abused him, he ran away from there with sword leaving his bicycle. Thereafter, she called out her son Lalit and then with the help of her brother-in-law Doojram and others her husband was admitted in hospital where he remained for nine days. PW-3 Lalit Kumar also supported the prosecution case and stated that hearing the scream of her mother when he came out he saw the accused running away with sword. Both these witnesses remained firm in their cross-examination and defence could not elicit anything from them to discredit their evidence. 11. PW-7 Dr. Dharmendra Kumar examined injured Ramprasad on 16.5.2005 and noticed lacerated wound on skull, fracture on left forearm and lacerated wound on the right shoulder. In his opinion, the said injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. He advised for x- ray of skull and hand and CT scan of the skull. He proved his report 6 Ex.P/13. However, PW-8 Dr. George M. Xaxa who conducted x-ray of the injured, did not find any fracture. He proved his report Ex.P/15. 12. Close scrutiny of the evidence on record makes it clear that it is the accused/appellant who assaulted the injured with a sharp edged weapon as a result of which he sustained injuries as mentioned in Ex.P/13. The injured (PW-1) has categorically stated as to the manner in which he was assaulted by the accused. It is well settled that the evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, his/her statement is not to be discarded lightly. The evidence of an injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. In this case, the evidence of the injured Ramprasad is duly supported by the evidence of his wife and son as also from the medial evidence. There is noting on record to suggest that the injured had any animosity or enmity with the accused for his false implication in this case. Learned trial Court upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record rightly came to the conclusion that offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out against the accused and thus acquitted him of the said charge and looking to the nature of injuries held him guilty under Section 323 of IPC. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based proper appreciation of the overall evidence on record and in accordance with law. Being so, no interference is required in the said findings and the same are hereby affirmed. 7 13. As regards sentence, considering the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2005, the appeal is also pending since 2005; the appellant was on bail during trial as well as during pendency of this appeal and nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that he ever misused the liberty so granted and he has remained in jail for four days, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 323 of IPC, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed on him by the learned trial Court with default sentence shall remain intact. He is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN