1 / 6 2025:CGHC:3492 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 557 of 2021 1 - Roshan Yadav @ Raja S/o Shri Ram Yadav Aged About 21 Years Occupation - Driver, R/o Village Kaleva, Atal Chowk, P.S. Dhumka Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 20/01/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment dated 20/01/2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), District Surguja, C.G. in S.T. No.126/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.02.12 11:15:05 +0530 2 / 6 Conviction Sentence Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 R.I. for Ten Years and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine Six months additional R.I. Under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 R.I. for Ten years and fine of Rs.5,000 and in default of payment of fine Six months additional R.I. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24/10/2019, Sub- Inspector Dilip Dubey posted at Ambikapur Police Station was on night patrolling with his colleagues at that time the complainant/victim Dilip Kumar was found injured in front of Kharsia Naka, Ambikapur and he told that the accused Raja Yadav alias Roshan had stabbed him in the stomach and arm with the intention to kill him and had fled with the truck and money. Thereafter, the injured was taken to the District Hospital, Ambikapur for treatment and after conducting his initial health check-up during treatment, the injured told that he is the driver of container no. CG004/MU 3071 in which he had come to Ambikapur from Durg on 22/10/2019 with co-driver/helper accused Raja Yadav alias Roshan Yadav carrying packets of chips and Kurkure and after unloading the goods, he took the container quite a distance ahead of Kharsia Chowk and cooked food and asked the accused to eat, but the accused did not eat. Thereafter, he ate food and slept in the vehicle, then at around 12.45 in the night, he got up due to extreme pain in his stomach, he saw that blood was coming out of his stomach, the accused was sitting near him with a knife and was staring at him. Thereafter, the 3 / 6 accused abused him in filthy lnguage and cut his throat with a knife with the intention of killing him, then when he tried to intervene, the accused bit his ear with his teeth and took out the money kept in his packet. The complainant / injured somehow got down from the vehicle and fell a little further, then the accused Raja Yadav fled away with the container. Based on the information given by the applicant/injured Dilip Kumar, Dehati Nalisi bearing number 0/2019 under sections 307, 394, 397 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged (Exhibit P-1) at the District Hospital, Ambikapur and on the basis of the said dehat nalisi, a First Information Report was lodged against the accused at the Ambikapur Police Station as Exhibit P-17. 4. During the investigation, the investigating officer, considering the nature/condition of the injuries caused to the complainant/injured, sent a letter to the Medical Officer, District Hospital Ambikapur and Executive Magistrate, Ambikapur to record the dying declaration of the injured, on which the dying declaration of the injured was recorded by them as per Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-4 respectively. On giving the letter Exhibit P-5 to the Tehsildar, Ambikapur for preparing the spot map of the incident, a sight map Exhibit P-5A was prepared. For the examination of the injuries caused to the injured, a report Exhibit P-6A was written to the Medical Officer, on which the doctor examined the injured and gave the treatment report Exhibit P-6. Documents related to the treatment of the injured were seized from the District Hospital, Ambikapur. A letter of Exhibit P-8A was issued to the Medical Officer, Medical College Ambikapur regarding the nature of injuries inflicted on the injured, on 4 / 6 which a query report was provided as per Exhibit P-8. The memorandum statement of the accused was recorded as per Exhibit P-10 and the keys of truck no. CG 04/MU-3071, the truck, the clothes worn at the time of the incident, a sharp knife and Rs. 10,000/- were seized from the accused in front of witnesses as per Exhibit P-11. Thereafter, the accused was arrested as per the arrest panchnama Exhibit P-13. The police prepared the spot map of the crime scene as per Exhibit P-14. The blood stains inside the driver cabin and near the gate of the seized truck number CG 04/ MU-3071 and the vehicle's insurance, RC, fitness certificate were seized as per Exhibit P-16 and were sent for FSL examination and the FSL report is Ex. P/23. 5. The appellant abjured his guilt during trial and claimed to be tried. The prosecution on its behalf examined as many as 09 witnesses. The learned trial Court after evaluating the facts & evidence convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 & 394 IPC do not attract because there was no intention to kill the deceased. He would next contend that no independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution and there are contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He would next contend that the alleged knife which has been seized is the vegetable cutting knife and it is not clear that the injury has been caused from such weapon. He would lastly contend that the order of the trial Court requires interference by this Court and the appellant 5 / 6 may be acquitted of the charges and he may be released on bail. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the order of the Court below is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the evidence with utmost circumspection. 9. Dr. Pukeshwar Verma in this case has been examined as PW-4 and he has stated that he had examined the complainant and found the following injuries:- • There was a lacerated wound in the victim's stomach above the navel, measuring 5 cm long and 2 cm wide, his small intestine had come out of the stomach. • There was a lacerated wound in the neck, the size of which was 10 cm. long, 4 cm. wide and 1 cm. Deep, • The upper part of the injured person's right ear was cut off. He further stated that the aforesaid injuries could have been caused to the injured by the seized weapon i.e. the knife. 10. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the injured and the gravity of offence, finding of conviction recorded by Trial Court is in accordance with the evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the records. Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, in my considered view, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court. Thus, conviction of 6 / 6 appellant is affirmed. 11. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the fact that incident in question took place as back as in the year 2019 and now almost more than 05 years have passed. During these years, appellant must have suffered tremendous mental trauma and anguish of trial, he has already undergone 01 year and 07 months of substantive sentence imposed by trial Court, he has no any previous criminal incident, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant (RI for 10 years) appears to be on higher side. So keeping in view all the circumstances, mentioned above, ends of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon appellant is reduced from RI 10 years to RI 07 years. 12. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellant under Sections 307 & 394 of IPC, the sentence imposed upon him by trial Court under the aforesaid sections is reduced from RI for 10 years to RI 07 years. However, sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court is hereby maintained. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu