1 2025:CGHC:25904 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 564 of 2008 Usat Ram Khadiya, S/o Pusau Ram Khadiya, aged about 38 years, occupation- Agriculturist, r/o Village- Vanhar, Thana-Kotara Road, Tahsil And Distt.- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Office, Police Station- Kotara Road, Tahsil & District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Pawan Kashyap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, PL Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 19.06.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 07.05.2008 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in S.T. No. 131/2007, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 324 of IPC R.I for 02 years with fine amount of Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.08.2007, the complainant- Paluram (PW-8) went for attending the nature’s call towards Dipapara nala dam with bicycle in the evening. At about 5:00 pm, while returning to his home by bicycle, when he was going near the appellant’s house, the appellant had assaulted with axe (tangi) on his neck from behind the back of him as such, blood was gushing forth from the complainant. Son Kunwar (PW-1) was the eye witness to the said incident, however, the complainant narrated the whole incident to her and his steps became sluggish and he sat in front of house of Bansi Rawat (PW-5). Thereafter, the said incident was also narrated to Madhav Bareth (PW- 6) by the complainant and told him to inform about the said incident to his family members. On the basis of said information, his family members came with Kotwar of village, thereafter he narrated the whole incident to his family members. After arranging vehicle, the complainant had been brought to Thana- Kotara Road. The matter was reported to Police Station- Kotara Road. The complainant was taken to the District Hospital, Raigarh for treatment. During the investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, axe (tangi) was seized as per Seizure Memo (Ex. P/8) on the basis of appellant’s memorandum and the said article had been examined by the Dr. Tarun Kumar Tondar, he gave report vide Ex.P/4, wherein he opined that the complainant sustained injury by axe (tangi) and the said injury, could have resulted in his death. After completion of the due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, thereafter the matter was committed to learned 3 First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh and the appellant was put to trial for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 3. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove its case against the appellant. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded his innocence and false implication in this case. However, in his defence the accused person did not adduce any witness. 4. The learned trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has convicted and sentenced the present appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has not properly evaluated the material available on record and wrongly convicted the appellant and memorandum and seizure of axe (tangi) had not been duly proved by the prosecution and there are many discrepancies in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses as well as in the story developed by the prosecution, hence prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly, so, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC, as imposed by the Trial Court is just and proper, the incident took place in the year 2007, this appeal is pending since 2008, the appellant is now aged more than 50 years and he is remained in jail for more than 2 months and 4 he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is lucid from record of learned learned trial Court that it framed charges for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 324 of IPC instead of Section 307 of IPC. 9. Complainant- Paluram (PW-8) has stated in his deposition that on the date of incident when he was returning his home by bicycle and reached near the appellant’s house, the appellant stood with axe (tangi) in front of his house and he assaulted on his back side of head and his steps became sluggish, he sat in front of house of Bansi Yadav (PW-5). Thereafter, the said incident was narrated to Madhav Bareth (PW-6) and told him to inform about the said incident to his family members. On the basis of said information, his brother came with village’s people on the spot. 10. Son Kunwar (PW-1), Sahasram (PW-2), Ku. Mem (PW-3), Banshidhar Yadav (PW-5), Madhav (PW-6), Ramlal (PW-7) and Damrudhar 5 Chouhan (PW-9) have stated that complainant told them that accused assaulted him by axe (tangi). 11. Dr. Tarun Kumar Tondar (PW-4), who examined the complainant- Paluram (PW-8) on the date of incident and found one incised wound on his back side of neck and gave his report vide Ex. P/2. 12. It is quite vivid that statement of the complainant- Paluram (PW-8) supported by other witnesses and medical evidence. Learned trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and thereby rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324 of IPC, looking to the statement of the doctor and considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality or irregularity in the findings as recorded by learned Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant. So, the conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed. 13. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2007 and nearly 17 years have rolled by since then, this appeal is pending since 2008. The appellant is now aged more than 50 years; appellant has remained in jail for more than 02 months and he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail. Hence, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded under Section 324 of IPC by the Trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 14. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned 6 judgment stands modified to the above extent. 15. 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. 16. 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 AMIT PATEL