1 2025:CGHC:17979 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 242 of 2007 1 - Khom Singh @ Munna Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh Thakur, aged about 37 years, Occupation-Private Job, R/o Village-Ghusera, P.S.- Abhanpur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2 – Chandrabhan Singh @ Kalu Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh Thakur, aged about 44 years, Occupation-Private Job, R/o Village-Ghusera, P.S.- Abhanpur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 3 – Bhagwan Singh S/o Kanaihya Singh Thakur, aged about 70 years, Occupation-Farmer, R/o Village-Ghusera, P.S.- Abhanpur, District-Raipur (C.G.) ...Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants : Smt. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 21.04.2025. 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.03.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 372/2004 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 307/34 of IPC R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs. 5000/-each, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 02 months each. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the ancestral property of the complainant namely Amit Singh, is situated at Village-Ghusera and regarding the division of ancestral property, dispute was going on between the father of the complainant namely Ramkrishna Singh and the appellant No. 3 namely Bhagwan Singh and on the date of incident i.e., 28.06.2004, the complainant with his brother and friend went to saw the field at about 4:30 pm. The appellants came there by tractor and they made an assault on the complainant, his brother and friend by bamboo stick and tabbal (A sharp edged weapon), so the complainant Amit Singh received injuries on the head and left hand, and the injured Jitendra Singh received injury on the head and the legs and the person present on the spot namely Dinu Sharma and Shantanu intervened the incident. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint before the Police Station Abhanpur and on the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, the Thana Police has registered the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC as Crime No. 148/2004, investigation was started and the appellants were taken into custody 3 and the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate, Raipur and the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) for offence under Section 307/34 of IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. However, they did not adduce any evidence in their defence. 5. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal preferred by the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.03.2007 awarded by the learned trial Court is erroneous, illegal, bad-in-law as well as facts and the learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly, as such the impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside. It is clear that statements of (PW-01) Amit Singh and (PW-05) Jitendra Singh are contradictory and statements of witnesses are full of contradiction and omission. So, the statement of witnesses are not reliable, but the learned trial Court gave wrong findings and convicted the appellants, so this appeal is not sustainable. It is clear from the statement of (PW-06) Dr. Tarun Dhruv that the injuries are not 4 dangerous to life of the complainant and the Doctor also admitted this suggestion that there is every chance to receive injuries if the person has fallen down on the floor. Alternatively, he submits that the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is not made out and only conviction under Section 325 is made out, appellant No. 2/Chandrabhan Singh @ Kallu Singh died on 31.03.2016 whereas appellant No. 3/Bhagwan Singh died on 14.06.2007 their death certificates are annexed along with I.A. No. 03/2021, so the appeal in respect of appellants No. 2 & 3 stands abated and the appeal only rests for appellant No. 1. However, the incident took place in the year 2004, this appeal is pending since 2007, The appellant is now aged about 60 years; he has remained in jail for more than 09 months and 22 days and he never misused the liberty so granted to him while being on bail, so in the interest of justice the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court’s order dated 12.04.2023 in the matter of Panchram Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. reported in CRA No. 1078 of 2023 and in this Court’s order dated 11.03.2024 in the matter of Ramesh Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2024 CGHC 8704. 8. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present accused/appellant, so this appeal is being devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5 9. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 10. (PW-01) complainant -Amit Singh stated that the appellant assaulted him, his brother Jitendra and both of them sustained injuries on their head, for their rescue Shantanu and Deenu Sharma intervened in between the altercation and as a result of which they too sustained injuries. 11. (PW-04) Shantanu supported the statement of the complainant (PW-01) Amit Singh Thakur. (PW-05) Jitendra Singh Thakur stated that the accused persons/appellants assaulted him by tabbal and club and he sustained injuries on his head. 12. (PW-06) Dr. Tarun Dhruv stated that he examined the complainant Amit Singh Thakur (PW-01) on 06.07.2004 and found injuries and gave his report vide Ex. P/04 and he also examined (PW-05) Jitendra Singh Thakur and he referred him for Neurosurgeon and orthopedics department for his treatment and gave his report vide Ex. P/05, however, other reports were not exhibited by the prosecution. No X-Ray report was proved by the prosecution and no medical expert was examined by the prosecution before the learned trial Court, to prove this fact that on the date of incident Jitendra Singh Thakur (PW-05) sustained grievous injuries and the prosecution only examined (PW-06) Dr. Tarun Dhruv who has not opined that injuries were dangerous to life of the complainant. As such, in absence of any X-Ray report and opinion of expert or treating doctor, the prosecution has failed to prove 6 this fact that on the date of incident (PW-04) Amit Singh Thakur and (PW-05) Jitendra Singh Thakur sustained grievous injuries and also failed to prove this fact that the appellant attempted to kill Jitendra Singh Thakur (PW-05). 13. During this appeal the injured Jitendra Singh Thakur and appellant Khom Singh @ Munna Singh filed an application under Sections 320(2), 320(5) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on this ground that the injured Jitendra Singh Thakur has compromised the matter outside of the Court and they may be permitted to compromise the matter. 14. From bare perusal of the record, it is clear from the minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence that the offence under Section 307 is not made out against the appellant, even grievous hurt was not proved by the prosecution. So, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 is altered into Section 324 of IPC. 15. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2004 and this appeal is pending since 2007. The appellant is now aged about 60 years; and he has remained in jail for more than 09 months and 22 days, appellant Nos. 2 & 3 have died during the pendency of the appeal, as such appeal in respect of appellant Nos. 2 & 3 stands abated and stands dismissed as abated and it only rests for appellant No. 1. Thus, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2004 and the total detention period of the accused/appellant, this Court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, 7 ends of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 16. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed in part. While altering his conviction from Section 307 to Section 324 of IPC, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in the Section. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 17. 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. 18. 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 U. K. Raju