1 2025:CGHC:17573 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 809 of 2005 1 - Meghraj Kosre, S/o Shri Motiram Kosre, Aged about 36 years, R/o Murti Maidan Bajpai Ward Govind, P.S.Govind Maharashtra Present address Shivaji Nagar Kota P.S. Amanaka, Distt. – Raipur (CG) 2. Babu Rao Kosre, S/o. Moti Ram Kosre, Aged about 24 years R/o. Murti Maidan Bajpai, Ward Govind P.S.Govind Maharashtra Present address Shivaji Nagar Kota P.S. Amanaka, Distt. – Raipur (CG) 3. Sanju @ Sanjay Sharma S/o Dwarika Prasad Sharma, Aged about 25 years, R/o. Ram Nagar, P.S.-Gudiyari, Present address Shivaji Nagar Kota P.S. Amanaka, Distt. – Raipur (CG) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through – P.S. Amanaka, Distt. – Raipur (CG) ... Respondent (s) For Appellant (s) : Shri Samir Singh, Advocate For Respondent / State : Shri Ankur Kashyap, Dy.G.A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 16/04/2025 What is assailed in this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of CrPC, 1973 is to a judgment dated 11/08/2005 passed by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge 2 (FTC), Raipur (CG) in Sessions Trial No.160/2005 by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 R/w Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and fine amount of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year was imposed. 2. The appellants were charged for an offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC that on the date of incident i.e. 26/02/2005, the appellants, by sharing common intention, assaulted the complainant–Dharam Rangaari with the help of laathi and danda (stick) on his head, chest, hands & legs, back etc. and caused severe injuries and attempted to commit his murder. Further case of the prosecution is that the complainant–Dharam Rangaari was standing near his house at Veer Shivaji Nagar, Kota. At that time, appellants came along with laathi & stick and filthily abused the appellant and threatened him and started assaulting him on various parts of his body and tried to kill him. The complainant–Dharam Rangaari started shouting, upon which he was sent to police station on Rikshaw by the appellants. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellants committed the said offence on account of previous enmity. On FIR being made against the appellants in the police station on 26/02/2005, offence under Section 307/34 of IPC was registered against them. Complainant-Dharam Rangaari was medically examined. The lungi worn by complainant–Dharam Rangaari at the time of incident was seized. Plain and simple soil from the place of occurrence were seized. Memorandum statement of the appellants were recorded and at that strength, bamboo stick was seized. They were arrested. The seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants under Section 307/34 of IPC before the competent Court who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately, 3 it was made over to the trial Court for trial. 3. The appellants were charged for an offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC. They were examined under Section 313 CrPC. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. No defence witness was examined. After assessment of evidence, learned trial Court vide its judgment, acquitted the appellants from the charges under Section 307/34 IPC and convicted them for offence punishable under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced as described in first paragraph of this judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to conviction of the appellant is bad in law and contrary to the evidence. He submits that the evidence has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. There are majority of contradictions and omissions in the statement of the witnesses and the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he prays that the appeal may be allowed. Alternatively, he submits that their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the judgment of conviction and submits that the statement of the witnesses particularly that of the complainant– Dharam Rangaari proves the case which is also corroborated by the statement of Dr. Alpana Khandelwal (PW11) and Dr. Anand Jaiswal (PW12) that there was fracture in his leg and he was hospitalized for 7 days. Therefore, he submits that case against the appellants is proved. He submits that looking to the overt act which resulted into injuries to the complainant and fracture in his right leg, the appellants deserve no sympathy. 4 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. The first question is whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 325/34 can stand to the scrutiny of this Court. To prove this case, basically the prosecution relied upon the statement of the complainant–Dharam Rangaari (PW1) who has categorically deposed that it is the appellant who assaulted him on various parts of his body resulting into injuries and fracture on his right leg. He vividly described the happening of the incident and individual overt act of the appellants. The statement of this witness is also corroborated by statement of Dr. Alpana Khandelwal (PW11) who found following injuries on the person of the complainant – Dharam Rangaari - **………….. धरम रगार को l[r और HkksFkjs हथि यार ls मर जाने संबंधिधत दቦኋया गाया उसं संमया मरजा gks'k मs और बंत कोरने या ग्या उसंको पल्सं 70 ्ቚतितधिमनेट ] आहत ्ቤሹኌ#त को$ lh/ks प%र को$ ट तिबंया हडड म' प%#चर और पतिबंला gM~Mh म' भी प%#चर ] उसंको lh/ks प%र पर कोई घाव । उसंको बंया प%र को उपर तिहस्सं पर एको ने1को$ला घाव जिजासंको$ आकोर आध इंच x vk/kk इंच संम । उ#त घाव म' अत्याधिधको र#त L=ko ह रह ] उसंको बंया पS र पर बंहुत सं [kjksapks को तिनेቦኋने । जा फु1 ला हुए । उसंको प%र पर lw जाने और छू9ने सं दद ह ने बंत;k । 2- आहत ्ቤሹኌ#त को ck;sa iSj ds ?kqVus esa cgqr lkjh jxM+ को$ चट' जा संईजा म' 2 संम x 1 lseh- tks ?kqVus esa vkSj उपर तिहस्त म' पई गाई । 3- vkgr O;fDr ds lh/ks vkeZ ds ikl ?kko Fkk] ftldh vkdkj vk/kk lseh- z vk/kk lseh FkkA tks ckgjh fgLls esa Fkh A 4- आहत ्ቤሹኌ#त को पजा को उपर को तिहस्सं म' गाहर घाव जा संईजा म' 3x2 संम- जा peMs को$ गाहरई तको पहुचया गाया । 5- एको गाहर घाव जा नेको को हቂኍ को उपर जा द ने; HkkSag को म को नेच म' जा आकोर म' 5 संम x. 5 संम को । 6- आहत ्ቤሹኌ#त को 'k रर म< घारसंने को fu’kku आख को नेच जा आकोर म' 2 x 5 संम- । 7- एको घाव जा आहत ्ቤሹኌ#त को BqM~Mh पर 5 संम आकोर को पया गाया । 8- आहत ्ቤሹኌ#त को 'kjhj पर ekFks को संमने fgLls म< गाहर घाव । जा ?kk व को कोरबं उपर जिजासंको$ आकोर 4 lseh- x 1 संम- जा peMh सं अदर तको गाहरई म' । 5 9- आg त ्ቤሹኌ#त को ekFks म< बंच म< एको गाहर ?kko tks आकोर मsa 2 संम x 5 संम- eLly तको peMs सं अदर गाहरई तको । 10- र#त जामने ls संबंधिधत ओला को fu'kku (dUV~;wtu) जा आहत ्ቤሹኌ#त को संने पर संमने को$ ओर पया गाया । तभी च ट' तिकोसं सं#त एव भी तर हथि यार सं पहुचई गाई जा मर जा?च को 6 घाट को अदर को$ ह ने पया गाया । उ#त च ट; सं संबंधिधत तिवቦኋष्ሺ को$ रया हत1 म<ने उ#त मरजा को नेको] कोने गाला और न्या9र लाजिजाLV को तिवभीगा म' और जानेरला संजाने त gM~Mh र गा तिवቦኋष्ሺ को ए#संपट ओतिपतिनेयाने को थिलाया भीजा मर ቛኋर उपर #त जाच सं संबंधिधत रिरप ट ्ቚ-प- 17 ह% जिजासंको अ सं अ भीगा पर मर gLrk{kj ह%।** 8. From the records, it is also apparent that the complainant sustained fracture on his right leg which has been proved by filing his X-Ray plates and other medical papers. He remained in hospital for seven days. Therefore, it cannot be said that conviction of the appellant is without proper appreciation of evidence and bad in law. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court appears to be just, reasonable and based on proper appreciation of evidence and therefore, cannot be set aside. 9. This leads to the second submission with regard to reduction of sentence. Jail report was received by this Court, according to which the appellant–Meghraj Kosre remained in jail for 1 year 1 month and 28 days. Appellant Baburam Kosre remained in jail for about 11 months and 21 days and appellant Sanju @ Sanjay remained in jail for 11 months and 9 days. The incident is of the year 2005. At the time of incident, they were aged about 36 years, 24 years and 25 years respectively and now they are in the ripe age. It is not brought to the notice of this Court whether they have ever misused the liberty. They are the first offenders. Nothing adverse was brought to the notice of this Court that presence of the appellants is detrimental to the society. Possibility of their reform cannot be ruled out. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP reported in (2004) 7 SCC 257 observed in paragraph 8 as under: 6 “8. This brings us to the next question in regard to the reduction of sentence made by the High Court. In criminal cases awarding of sentence is not a mere formality. Where the statute has given the court a choice of sentence with maximum and minimum limit presented then an element of discretion is vested with the court. This discretion can not be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically. It will have to be exercised taking into consideration the gravity of offence, the manner in which it is committed, the age, the sex of the accused, in other words, the sentence to be awarded will have to be considered in the background of the fact of each case and the court while doing so should bear in mind the principle of proportionality. The sentence awarded should be neither excessively harsh nor ridiculously low.” 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of MP Vs. Ghanshyam Singh reported in (2003) 8 SCC 13 held as under:- “13. Criminal law adheres in general to the principle of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Judges, in essence, affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence, sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread. 14. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle 7 of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences. 15. After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the Court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been very aptly indicated in Dennis Councle McGautha v. State of Callifornia that no formula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate punishment in the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to the consideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished.” 12. While determining the quantum of punishment various factors needs to be considered. Nature and gravity of offence, penalty provided for the offence, manner of commission of offence, proportionality between crime & punishment, character of the offender, age and sex of the offender, antecedents if any, possibility of reforms, impact of crime on society etc. are some of the relevant consideration in determining the quantum of punishment. Court has to strike a balance between crime and punishment. Possibility of reform is an important mitigating factor while imposing 8 appropriate sentence. Undue sympathy should not be given only because of long drawn pendency of criminal proceedings. 13. Considering the mitigating circumstances as stated above and in view of the case laws cited above, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the sentence imposed upon the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court and default sentence shall remain intact. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months in view of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 14. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part. 15. Copy of this judgment with records be sent back to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.04.24 10:46:18 +0530