1 2025:CGHC:11242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 444 of 2008 Rohit Kumar, S/o Koduram Gond, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Annutola, Police Station – Dondilohara, District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate-Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. BP Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 06/03/2025 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.03.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Durg (C.G.), in Session Case No.1/2008 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.07 17:33:59 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 307 of IPC (for Ramesh) RI for 4 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default thereof, 1 year additional RI. U/s 323 of IPC (For Puniya Bai) RI for 1 year 2. The prosecution story in brief is that Ramesh lives with his family and works as a farmer in Annutola. On December 2, 2007, at around 9:00 AM, the appellant, without any reason, started an altercation with Puniya Bai and assaulted her near the big toe of her right foot with a tangiya (a type of axe). Following this, Ramesh, along with his wife Puniya Bai and their daughter Tanuja, was on his way to Nandalal’s house for medical aid. At that time, the appellant suddenly arrived, fetched a tangiya (axe) from his house, and, with the intent to kill, assaulted Ramesh on his back, causing him to bleed. The incident was witnessed by Ramesh’s wife and daughter. The villagers were immediately informed of the attack. After assaulting Ramesh, the appellant fled, leaving the tangiya at the scene. Ramesh took possession of the weapon. Thereafter, injured Ramesh went to Dandilohara Police Station and reported the incident. On the basis of said report, the police registered First Information Report against the Appellant. During the investigation, the police conducted medical examination of the injured persons, inspected the crime scene, prepared a site map, and seized blood-stained clothes and the tangiya presented by Ramesh. They also collected blood-soaked soil and plain soil from the spot. These items were sent for examination by a forensic expert. Witness statements were recorded, and upon finding evidence of the crime, the appellant was taken into custody. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed 3 against the appellant. 3. So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents. The statement of the Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication in the matter. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.03.2008, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant has been convicted for attempt to murder under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for the sole injury of the complainant Ramesh (PW-2), whereas the appellant neither had any such intention nor the injury was found to be of a grievous nature. Therefore, the conviction under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for the injury of complainant Ramesh is not appropriate, rather the maximum case is under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has already undergone for about 06 months and 15 days in jail. Therefore, the conviction under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code may be altered/converted to section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant may sentenced to the period already undergone him. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 4 8. In this case, the wife of complainant Ramesh, Puniyabai (PW-3) is also injured but she has been found to have minor injuries. According to the prosecution case, the injured Ramesh and the appellant Rohit Kumar are brothers. Doctor Santosh Kumar Raote (PW-6) has stated that he has medically examined the injured Ramesh and has given a report (Exhibit P-9). According to which, the complainant Ramesh had a single cut injury on his back which was 6 cm long and was bleeding. The said injury was caused by a hard and pointed object. Doctor Raote (PW-6) has stated that the said injury could be of grievous nature. But it is noteworthy that he has not been referred for X-ray. It has not been clarified how the said injury falls under the category of grievous injury in the context of Section-320 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no clear evidence available on record as to what was the condition of the injured Ramesh at the time of medical examination, which can lead to the belief that the injury sustained by the complainant Ramesh was fatal for his life. The dispute was between brothers and intent is the main element for the crime of attempted murder. 9. It has been held in paragraph 11 by this Court in the matter of Mohan Chandaniya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRA No.452/2003 on 03.07.2024 which reads as under:- “11. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Shivamani & Another Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police reported in Criminal Appeal No. 3619 of 2023 in para 09 which reads as under:- ‘In State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury 5 capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. In the same judgment, it was pointed out that the Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention of knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. ‘ The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (Supra) and Kanha (Supra), it was observed that while grievous or life- threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.” 10. In the above situation, the case of attempt to murder does not appear to fall under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but the injury caused by a hard, pointed and sharp object is not described as grievous but appears to be simple. Therefore, the case falls under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant Rohit Kumar under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is altered/converted to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. As regards the sentence part, keeping in view that the incident had taken place in December, 2007 more than 17 years ago. At that time the appellant was aged about 32 and now he must be aged about 49 years having family 6 responsibilities. He is facing the lis since 2007 and he already remained in jail for about 6 months 15 days. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellant to jail and the ends of justice would serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 13. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 307 of IPC is altered/converted to Section 324 of IPC and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 6 months 15 days. The conviction of the appellant for offence under under Section 323 of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 1 year is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 6 months 15 days. However, the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and its default stipulation imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 15.The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437- A of the CrPC. 16. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Shubham