1 2025:CGHC:46992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 807 of 2025 Aatmaram Yadav S/o Thanu Ram Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o Tipawan, Police Station - Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station - Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) -----Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Satya Prakash Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu ORDER ON BOARD 12.09.2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 415 (2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the legality and sustainability of impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.03.2025, in Sessions Trial No. 04 of 2024, whereby learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar (C.G.) convicted appellant for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and for offence U/s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.18 10:39:04 +0530 2 imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months additional imprisonment with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are that complainant Kumari Bai Yadav lodged a report at Police Station Palari alleging that on 05.10.2023, a quarrel took place between her husband, Ashwani Yadav, and Atmaram Yadav (the appellant) over the irrigation of a field. Next day, Atmaram, still holding a grudge, saw Ashwani and complainant returning on their motorcycle and started abusing in the name of his mother and sister. When Ashwani stopped to object him, Atmaram, with intent to kill struck Ashwani in his head by means of spade, inflicting serious injuries. Her husband had injuries on his head, forehead, back of the head, below and over his left eye. When she tried to intervene, she too was beaten with hands, fists and a shovel due to which she suffered injuries on heel and above heel of her right leg. If she had not intervened, Atmaram Yadav would have killed her husband. 3. Based on the complaint made, FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against appellant. Police prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-2. On medical examination of injured persons, report vide Ex.P-15, P-17 and P-18 were given. On production of Kumari Bai complainant, a blood stained white shirt was seized vide Ex.P-3. Blood stained, plain soil and an iron shovel were seized from the place of incident vide Ex. P-5. Memorandum statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex.P-6. On production of accused, an iron shovel and a shirt were seized vide Ex.P-7. Appellant/accused was arrested vide Ex.P-8 and information 3 was given vide Exhibit P-9. On production of Head Constable, Arshad Khan, a pen drive was seized. Bedhead ticket of injured Ashwani Yadav is Ex.P-16. Certificate under Section 65B is Exhibit P-20. On application vide Ex. P-22 given to the Tehsildar for preparing spot map, the Patwari prepared the site map vide Ex.P-24. Application Exhibit P-23 was given to Chanda Devi Hospital Balodabazar for providing documents related to the treatment of injured Ashwani Yadav. Application for chemical examination of seized property was given vide Ex.P-25 and FSL report is Ex.P-27. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and after completion investigation, charge- sheet was filed. 4. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 294, 323, 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial. During the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses namely Kumari Bai (P.W.-1), Murali Yadav (P.W.-2), Ashwani (P.W.-3), Milesh (P.W.-4), Ramesh Giri Goswami (P.W.-5), Chandrahas Yadav (P.W.-6), Madho Ram (P.W.-7), Bhagwat Avadheliya (P.W.-8), Dr. Narendra Kumar Karsh (P.W.-9), Dr. Menka Gandekar (P.W.-10), Mohd. Arshad Khan (P.W.-11), Rajesh Kumar Sen, ASI (P.W.-12) and Asha Banjare, Patwari (P.W.-13). Prosecution exhibited 27 documents. Statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. Tikeshwar Yadav (DW-1) and Takeshwar Yadav (D.W.-2) was examined in defence. After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court convicted appellant for commission of offences and sentenced him as mentioned here-in-above. 4 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the appellant is a senior citizen, currently about 60 years of age, as such, he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. It is further submitted that the appellant remained in custody from 07.10.2023 to 15.07.2024 and thereafter from the date of judgment i.e. from 27.03.2025 till today and thereby he has undergone more than one year and two months of incarceration pursuant to the impugned judgment. He is facing the criminal proceedings since last about three years. He has no prior criminal antecedents and has maintained good conduct during his custody. In light of these circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the sentence imposed upon appellant may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him, in the interest of justice and considering his age and health condition. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and submits that appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced, however, he could not dispute the submission of learned counsel for appellant that appellant is an old man and he has no previous criminal antecedents. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of trial Court. 8. Since the learned counsel for appellant has limited his arguments solely to the issue of sentence, this Court refrains from examining or commenting on the merits of the case. 5 9. Perusal of the record reveals that there exists an inter-se relationship between the complainant’s family and appellant. The dispute arose over the irrigation of adjoining agricultural fields owned by complainant and appellant. The incident occurred in the heat of the moment and due to a sudden quarrel related to this issue. Perusal of impugned judgment would show that appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum term of 7 years. However, there is no minimum punishment prescribed for the offences as above, under the IPC. The record further discloses that appellant remained in custody from 07.10.2023 to 15.07.2024, and thereafter from the date of the judgment, i.e., 27.03.2025 till today. Accordingly, he has undergone a total period of incarceration of more than one year and two months. He is currently 60 years of age, and as submitted by learned counsel appearing on his behalf, he is presently facing multiple age-related ailments. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that appellant has no prior criminal antecedents and has maintained good conduct during his period of custody. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the inter-se relationship between the complainant’s family and the appellant, as well as cause of dispute arising over irrigation of adjoining agricultural fields owned by the parties, duration of incarceration already undergone by appellant, absence of any previous criminal record, and his overall conduct, this Court is of the considered opinion that, ends of justice would be met if, while 6 upholding the conviction imposed upon appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the applicant under Section 323 and 307 of IPC, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Sentence of fine is, however, maintained along with its default clause. 12. Appellant is in jail. He be released from jail forthwith in case he is not required in any other offence. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court and copy of judgment to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith for information and necessary action. 1. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram