1 2025:CGHC:10636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 450 of 2005 1 - Sonuram S/o Deen Dayal Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Makhan Kewat (Died And Abated) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 07-01-2025. ... Appellants versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Asha, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 04/03/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short “CrPC”) assailing the legality, validity and judicial propriety of the judgment impugned dated 03.05.2005 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) in Session Trial No.119/2004. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence U/s 323, 34 IPC RI for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, 2 in default of payment of fine, further 2 months RI U/s 324, 34 IPC R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine, further 6 months R.I. 2. Initially two accused persons namely Sonuram S/o Deen Dayal and Makhan Kewat S/o Parsu Nishad were put to trial for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 r/w 34 and 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). During pendency of this appeal appellant No.2 Makhan Kewat has passed away. Hence his appeal stood abated. The incident has occurred on 06.05.2004 and report (Ex.P-9) was lodged by the complainant Nandkumar (PW-6) on the same day at 11.15 hours. As per report the complainant resides in village Khajri and he is a farmer. On the date of incident at about 9 hours in the morning, his sister-in-law Sunita and Savitram had gone earlier to pluck mangoes. After that he went with his father to pluck mangoes in the mango orchard and there Makhan and Sonu were fighting with each other. On this Nandkumar said that he has bought the garden, who are you to pluck mangoes. Then Sonuram hit his father Mohan by back portion of tangia. His father fell unconscious. When he went to save him then accused Makhan filthily abused and assaulted Nandkumar on his temple region by Lathi. Blood was oozing out of his head. The incident was witnessed by Sohni, Sohaga, Sunita and Latabai. On the report of complainant Nandkumar offence under Sections 294, 506-B, 323, 324 of IPC was registered and investigation was set on motion. Injured persons were medically examined. On the memorandum statement of appellant- Sonuram, an axe was seized. Accused/appellants were arrested. Spot map was prepared. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and charge-sheet under Sections 294, 506-B, 323, 324 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon which was committed to the Sessions Court, thereafter it was made over to the learned trial Court for trial. The appellants were charged for an offence punishable 3 under Sections 294, 323/34, 307/34 of IPC. They denied the charges and claimed trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 CrPC were also recorded in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case, and claimed trial. 4. The learned trial Court on due appreciation of evidence vide its impugned judgment convicted the appellants under Sections 323/34 of IPC and instead of Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC convicted under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC however acquitted the accused persons under Section 294 of IPC and they were sentenced as stated above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution was not able to bring home the guilt of the accused person and the finding recorded by trial Court is bad in law and contrary to evidence and material on record. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence brought before it to its proper perspective and erroneously convicted the appellant as stated above. Therefore, he prays that the appeal may be allowed and appellant may be acquitted from all the charges. Alternatively, he submits that the incident had occurred on 06.05.2004, during pendency of the appeal, the appellant was granted bail by this Court, he has never misused the liberty granted to him and after his conviction his sentence was suspended by this Court and he has been duly following the conditions. He was aged about 28 years at the time of incident and he has faced lis for almost 20 years. He has remained in jail for about 24-25 days. In light of above, in the event if this Court is not convinced, the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to period already undergone by him. He submits that by the flux of time he must have reformed in the society and one opportunity may be given to him. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant and submits that from the statement of victim and the material brought before it, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. The first question which comes to determination as to whether the appellant is the author of the crime or not. 9. Complainant- Nandkumar (PW-6) in his statement before the Court described the happening of the incident and clearly deposed that appellant Sonuram assaulted his father on his temple region, resulting of this his father fell down. He further deposed that the appellant assaulted him by the handle of Tangiya and after that he fell down. He said to have made immediate report Ex. P-9 and he was medically examined also. He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination barring few omissions and contradictions. His statement is also corroborated by statement of PW-7 Mohanlal who also described the manner in which the appellant assaulted him on his temple region by Tangiya. Despite that nothing significant is brought on record to disbelieve the statement of this witness. Apart from this, the statement of this witness is also corroborated by Dr. Alpana Luniya (PW-1) who witnessed three injuries on the person of the complainant Nandkumar and also opined that the injuries sustained by the complainant would be caused by the Tangiya. Therefore, learned trial Court gave a finding of conviction against the appellant as stated above. The finding appears to be based on proper appreciation of evidence does not require any interference by this Court, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 is maintained. 10. It leads me to second question as to whether the sentence awarded to the appellant can be reduced to period already undergone by him. 11. The record reflects that incident has occurred on 06.05.2004, nearly 20 years are rolled by since then, after his conviction, his sentence was suspended by this Court and it does not appear as to whether the appellant has misused the liberty and for all these years, he must have reformed in the society and nothing is brought on record that he has involved himself in any crime, his freedom is not detrimental to the 5 society at large, the appellant has remained in jail for about 24-25 days. Overall facts & circumstances indicates that no harm to society at large is likely to cause in case the appellant is prematurely released. In view of the above discussion, this court is inclined to reduce the sentence imposed upon the appellant to the sentence already undergone/served by him. 12. 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. 13. 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/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.03.07 11:22:44 +0530