1 2025:CGHC:39827 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1035 of 2008 1 - Shahid Khan, S/o Chadekhan, Aged About 32 Years, Occupation- Agricultural, R/o Village Girari, P.S. Pendra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ...Appellant versus 1 – The State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Gaurela, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 08/08/2025 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Pendra Road, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 22/2008 whereby the appellant has been 2 convicted under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo R.I. for 6 months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 11.02.2008, the complainant went on patrolling with other police staff. Liquor was being sold illegally in the hotel of Tuka Ram Rathore on the road ahead of Sanatorium Hospital Gaurela. The patrolling team stopped there and started interogatting the accused in this regard, upon which, the accused started assaulting the complainant on his head with iron rod which was being used to take out the Taduri roti from the fire. As a result of which, the complainant sustained injury on his head. The accused was caught by other constables through intervention and brought to the police station along with the complainant. At the police station, the complainant lodged a report of the incident against the accused, and a crime was registered on the basis of said report. During investigation, iron rod and the complainant’s blood stained uniform were seized. Medical examination of the complainant was got done. Spot map was prepared. The seized rod and clothes were examined. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 333 and 307 of IPC against the appellant, to which appellant abjured his guild and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded 3 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant under Section 332 of IPC in place of Sections 333 and 307 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not challenging the conviction part of the impugned judgment, however, he is confined his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He further submits that the incident took place in the year 2008, this appeal is pending since 2008, at the time of incident the appellant was aged about 32 years and as of now he is near about 50 years; appellant has already remained in jail for about 30 days. Therefore, considering his age, his undergone period may be considered to be sufficient sentence for the alleged offence. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court after minutely appreciation of oral and documentary evidence rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 332 of IPC. Therefore, this appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 4 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. Although the learned counsel for the appellant is not pressing this appeal on merit but it is clear from statements of Manoj Kumar Sahu (P.W.-1), Anjani Kumar Singh (P.W.-2), Tukaram Rathore (P.W.-4), R.R. Sharma (P.W.-5) and complainant- Piyush Tirki (P.W.-6) that on the date of incident, the complainant along with other staff was on patrolling duty and when they reached hotel of Tukaram Rathore and started interrogating the accused there, the accused assaulted the complainant- Piyush Tirki with iron rod. 9. Dr. Kamal Kumar Soni (P.W.-3) medically examined the complainant- Piyush Tirki and found one lacerated wound on his left side of the head. He advised him to get his X-ray done. He gave his report vide Ex.P/1 in this regard. He stated that on 20.02.2008, he prepared the X-report of the complainant wherein he did not find any fracture in his head. He gave his report vide Ex.P/2 in this regard. 10. The learned trial Court minutely appreciated statements of all witnesses and oral and documentary evidence including the medical evidence and thereby convicted the appellant as mentioned above. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence of witnesses as well as medical evidence, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 332 of IPC is affirmed. 5 11. As regards the sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2008, at that time, appellant was 32 years of age and as of now he is near about 50 years; appeal is pending since 2008; appellant remained in jail for about 30 days. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 332 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount already deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted accordingly. The appellant is reported to be in jail. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case. 13. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6 14. 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