1 2025:CGHC:15763 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 212 of 2007 1 - Mahendra Ghasiya S/o S/o. Sanant Ram Aged About 30 Years R/o. Village Badkapara, Police Station Surajpur, District - Surguja (C.G.) Now In District - Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Subasan Ghasiya S/o S/o. Sanat Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o. Village Badkapara, Police Station Surajpur, District - Surguja (C.G.) Now In District - Surajpur (C.G.) Appellants versus 1 - State Of C.G. Through P.S. Surajpur, , District-Surguja, Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. N. K. Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 03/04/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2007 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge (FTC), Surajpur (C.G.) in ST No.371/2006, whereby the appellants have been convicted Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 under Section 323 & 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.05.2006 at about 7 pm at Village Badkapara, the accused assaulted the complainant by means of sword due to old land dispute, as a result of which the complainant sustained injuries, thereafter matter was reported to the concerned police station, upon which a case was registered against the accused and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider that there are hardly any reliable evidence to warrant the conviction of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court ought to have considered that there is a counter case in this case as the complainant party had also assaulted the present appellants. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider that there was no such injury found on the body of the complainant for convicting the appellants under section 323 and u/s 323/34 of the 3 IPC. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider that the Dr SL Jaiswal (PW/3) has opined that the injuries sustained by the complainant would likely to cause by some edged stone. The learned Trial Court should have considered this fact that the witnesses examined in this case namely Mahesh (PW/1) Smt Manmet Bai (PW/2) and Katan (PW/4) are the interested witnesses and their statements should have been scrutinized with great care and caution. Alternatively, Learned counsel submits that the incident took place in the year 2006, the appellant No.1 has died during the pendency of the appeal and the appellant No.2 is now aged about 53 years, he remained in jail for 1 day and he is convicted only for 6 months and this appeal is pending since 2007, therefore, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellants. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 324 read with 4 Section 34 of IPC against the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. The complainant Mahesh stated that prior to 8-9 months, when was coming home after the work, then the accused came to his home in a drunken condition and abused him and the appellant Mahendra assaulted him by sword. PW-2 Manmet Bai and Katan (PW-4) supported the statement of the complainant. Dr. S. L. Jaiswal (PW-3) examined the complainant Mahesh Ram and opined that he found one injury on his forehead and gave his report (Ex-P/1). 8. The learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the appellant Mahendra under Section 323 and the appellant Subasan under Section 323/34 of IPC. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is based upon the proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, therefore, conviction of the appellants under Section 323 & 323/34 of IPC is affirmed. 9. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2007, appellant No.1 has already died and the appellant No.2 is now aged about 53 years, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellant No.2 is sentenced to the fine of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant No.2 Subasen is sentenced to the fine of Rs.5,000/-. 5 10. The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is modified. 11. The appellant No.2 Subasen is on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant No.2 is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the court concerned forthwith after paying fine of Rs.5,000/-. The bail bond furnished by the appellant No.2 shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. 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 Nirala