1 2025:CGHC:17169 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 505 of 2008 Mangalnath @ Mangara, S/o Jaganram, aged about 24 years, Occupation- Agriculture/ Shopkeeper, R/o Chhote Banai, at present R/o Balachhapar, P. S. & Tahsil Jashpur, Distridct Jashpur (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, through P. S. Jashpur, District Jashpur (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia and Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Ms. N. K. Kashyap, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 15/04/2025 1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.05.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar, CG in S. T. No.24/2008. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code 7 years RI 2 U/ s 341 of the Indian Penal Code 1 month SI Sentences to run concurrently and sentences undergone to be adjusted. 2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on the date of incident i.e. 26.01.2007 in the evening, complainant Peela Ram was returning to his home after buying matchbox from the shop of Ramkishan Rajput situated at Balachhapar Chowk. At around 7.00 pm, he reached near larder (Kothar) of his house. At the same time, the accused Mangalnath hiding behind bushes came out in front of him and hit him twice with Tangiya, due to which he fell down. Later, Ramsevak, Budhnibai, Devmuni came there and he informed them about the incident. Later, he also informed Jeet Ram, Mahendra Singh, Hemant Kumar about the incident. The said accused suspected him of witchcraft in connection with the death of Jethuram and Rajendra Ram and regarding the said matter, the said accused also quarreled with Budhanibai. Later, on 26.01.2007, at around 20.15 hours complainant Peela Ram gave the basic information of the incident to Jashpur Police Station, on which a First Information Report was filed. Investigation was set on motion. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, spot map was prepared. Memorandum of accused was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and on its basis a Tangia was seized from him. Complainant- Peelaram was medically examined , a query was made and query report was received. The seized Tangia was examined by the doctor, the spot map of the incident was prepared. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant. The accused/appellant was charged under Sections 341, 307 IPC, however, denied the charge framed against him and claimed for trial. 3. So as to establish its case, the prosecution has examined as many as many 6 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents. The statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded where he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. By the judgment impugned learned Court below has held the accused/appellant guilty and imposed the sentence as described above which is challenged before this Court by the appellant. 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of trial Court with regard to conviction of appellant is bad in law, erroneous and contrary to the evidence. He submits that learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence to its proper perspective and arriving to a conclusion of conviction of the appellant. He submits that there is majority of contradictions and omissions in the statement of witnesses of prosecution which has been wrongly ignored by the trial Court. He further submits that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be allowed and appellant may be acquitted of all the charges. 6. Per contra, State counsel supports the judgment impugned and submits that after due assessment of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, a meritorious finding with regard to conviction of the appellant under above stated offences has been recorded by trial Court which does not require any interference. She further submits that minor contradiction and omission would not ipso facto doubts the credibility of prosecution witnesses. He submits that ocular evidence of complainant- Peelaram is also corroborated by the medical evidence, therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In this case, in order to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is expedient to scrutinize the statement of complainant- Peelaram/ injured (PW-1) who in his statement before the Court has categorically deposed that the appellant is the son of his elder daughter. It was 26th January in evening time, he had gone to Ramkishan’s shop near Balchapar to buy matchbox and at 6.00 pm he was returning to his house. He reached near the jackfruit bush, the accused/appellant was hiding there, he hit him on the head with an axe. The accused/appellant hit him once on the left side of his head and hit twice on the right side of his head, due to which he fell down. He further deposed that Hemant and Budhbihari had arrived there. By the time they reached, the accused/ appellant had fled away. He deposed that Jethuram is his younger brother and he has passed away. Rajendra Ram is his grandson who died in a truck accident. The accused lived in the house of Jethuram. On account of death of Jethuram and Rajendra, the appellant suspected him of being a witch. BudhaniBai is his daughter. Before the assault was made, the appellant has 4 also assaulted Budhnibai. He further deposed that after reaching home, he informed Budhnibai and Ramsevak about the incident. He also stated that he lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P-1) and he was taken to the Hospital. He was subjected to cross- examination and the defence tried to prove that at the time of incident,there was dark night and also suggested that he cannot see, however this witness remained firmed on material particular with regard to assault made by the appellant, therefore, this Court does not find any good ground to disbelieve the statement of this witness. 9. Dr. Lalit Ekka (PW-5) examined the complainant Peela Ram (PW-1) and found the following injuries:- 1. एक कटा हुआ घाव जो किक, सिर क ले्ቌले इड ैሰ था। उक आकर 3 . ैሰ. x । . ैሰ. x हቂኍ क गहरई तक, था। 2. एक कटा हुआ घाव जो किक, सिर ैሰ बीचोबीचो था। उक्त घाव था़቟ घा%ैሰ हुआ था। उक आकर 12 . ैሰ.x 2 . ैሰ. x हड& ड क गहरई तक, था। उक्त घाव खू(न रिर रह था। 3. एक कटा हुआ घाव जो किक, सिर क पीछे आक्पीटाले ቌኔ्ቔ ैሰ/ था। उक आकर 3 . ैሰ. x । . ैሰ. x हቂኍ क गहरई तक, था। He has also stated that those injuries could have come by hard and blunt object and was within 6 hours of examination and gave his report Ex. P-5. He did not find any fracture on the body of complainant Peelaram (PW-1). He also gave a query report with regard to the axe and stated that those injuries could have been caused by the axe. He exhibited query report Ex. P-6. In cross-examination it has been stated that on query being made by the Police he has informed that if the proper treatment was not given, it could have been life- threatening. He had also told the police that Peelaram’s head injuries were of grievous nature. No further cross-examination was done. 10. Statement of PW-1 is also corroborated by Ramsevak (PW-2) to whom he has informed about the incident. In his statement he has deposed that he has seen the injuries of his father on his head in his house. He also deposed that the appellant used to call his father a witch. Presence of the appellant at the scene of occurrence is also fortified by the statement of Hemant Kumar (PW-3). He deposed that the incident is of 26th January, 2007 in the 5 evening it was not dark. He, Budhbihari, Mahendra Singh was going to search labourer for brick kiln. They were about 100 feet away from the jackfruit tree. He saw the accused running away from the bushes of jackfruit and the appellant was holding Tangia in his hand. He came near the Jackfruit tree and found Peelaram lying down. The blood was oozing out from the head of Peelaram and he was taken to Hospital. He admits signature on memorandum Ex.P-3, however he stated that no seizure was made in front of him but admitted the signature in seizure memo Ex. P-4. Another witness Budhbihari Ram (PW-4) has not given any memorandum statement neither Tangiya was seized at the instance of appellant. Though these witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution with regard to memorandum Ex. P-3 and seizure Ex. P-4 however, they admits their signature on P-3 & P- 4. The statement with regard to presence of the appellant and running from the scene of occurrence holding Tangia is established beyond reasonable doubt. Apart from this, the statement of Peelaram is also very categorical with regard to overt act of assault made. The ocular evidence of PW-4 is also corroborated by medical evidence. 11. The learned trial Court on the basis of these evidence and considering the medical evidence convicted the appellant as stated above. The finding so recorded does not appear to be perverse or contrary to the evidence. Therefore, the appeal has no merit liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. A report has been received from Central Jail District Surguja (CG) dated 15.04.2025 where it has been stated that the appellant was released on 13.09.2011 on completion of sentence, therefore, the appellant need not surrender. The record of the trial Court with copy of the judgment be sent back for information and compliance. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.04.22 10:53:58 +0530