1 2025:CGHC:9050 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 736 of 2007 1 – Shivprasad, S/o Ramprasad Satnami, aged about 26 years, R/o Petulkanpa, P.S. Patharia, District Bilaspur 2 – Khorwa alias Dwarikaprasad, S/o Ramprasad Satnami, aged about 24 years, R/o Petulkanpa, P.S. Patharia, District Bilaspur ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 20/02/2025 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2007 passed Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.02.24 15:54:34 +0530 2 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in Session Case No.46/2007 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 307/34 of IPC RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, 2 months additional RI. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on the night of 27-05- 2006, complainant Suresh Kumar Choudhary who is a Patwari had gone to village Jareli on his motorcycle to drop Dr. Singraul at his home. At around 11:00 PM, after dropping Dr. Singraul, he was returning to Patharia on his motorcycle (Registration No. MP 21 D 1735). When he reached between Petulkampa Khar and Deori Khar, appellants Shivkumar and his younger brother Khorwa alias Dwarika from village Petulkampa stopped him and started beating him with sticks, saying that the land records had been transferred in the name of Jagram Lodhi. As a result of the assault, the complainant fell to the ground along with his motorcycle and lost consciousness. Thinking that he was dead, both the appellants fled from the scene. After some time, the complainant regained consciousness, got up, and slowly walked to the house of Sundar Lodhi, where he informed him about the incident. Sundar Lodhi then took the complainant to village Deori, where he narrated the incident to village Kotwar Kalidas and Kedar Singh. Due to the assault, the complainant suffered injuries on his right wrist, above his nose, and on his temple, and bleeding from his nose wouldn’t stop. He filed a report at Patharia Police Station on 28-05-2006 at 1:00 AM. The police then referred him to a doctor, who 3 suspected fractures in his nose, face, and hand and advised an X-ray, which confirmed a fracture in his nose bone. During the investigation, the complainant’s bloodstained full pants and T-shirt were seized, and a spot map of the crime scene was prepared. The bloodstained soil, plain soil, and the complainant’s motorcycle (MP 21 D 1735) were also seized. Memorandum statements of appellants Shivprasad and Dwarikaprasad were recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, based on which two sticks used in the crime were recovered. Later, the seized clothes, sticks, and soil samples were sent for chemical examination at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants. 3. So as to hold the Appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. The statement of the Appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the matter. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2007, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the no case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code can be made out against the appellant, but at the most it is made out under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code only. She further submits that the appellants have been in custody for about 01 month and 20 days and the incident took place more than 18 years ago. The appellants have family responsibilities. Therefore, their conviction may be altered 4 from section 307 of IPC to section 325 of IPC and they may be sentenced with the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. In the case, the complainant/injured Suresh Kumar (PW-1) who is a Patwari has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident i.e. 27/05/2006 at about 10.00 pm, he had gone to village Jareli to drop Dr. Singraul. Then the appellants met him in Khar and stopped him and said that you do not work on our land and beat him with hands and fists. Due to which he sustained injuries on his nose, wrist, arm, ribs and he became unconscious. The incident is supported by the statement of witnesses Kotwar Kalidas (P.W.-2) and Kedar Singh Rajput (P.W.-3). In the First Information Report also, no such fact has come to light in his cross-examination due to which the statement of the complainant/injured Suresh Kumar (P.W.-1) can be disbelieved that the appellants had beaten him. 9. After conducting medical examination of Patwari Suresh Kumar (PW-1), Dr. Anand Manjhi (PW-7) has given the report vide Exhibit P-12, according to which he had contusions of different sizes on his face, above the nose, shoulder and arm joint, right chest, right side of the abdomen, right forearm and right palm. His nose was bleeding. The said injury was caused by a hard and blunt object within 06 hours and the bleeding from the nose was life-threatening. 10. Doctor R. Jeetpure (PW-6) has conducted an X-ray 5 examination of injured Suresh Kumar (PW-1) and has submitted a report vide Exhibit P-11. According to which, there was a fracture in the bone of his nose which was grievous in nature. 11. In this case, the only grievous injury on injured Suresh (PW-1) is said to be on his nose. The beating was also done with hands and fists. The reason for the beating is said to be that the injured Suresh, Patwari, was not giving the papers after completing the work of the appellants. In such a situation, it would be appropriate to see whether the appellants had the intention of attempting murder? 12. It has been held in paragraph 11 by this Court in the matter of Mohan Chandaniya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRA No.452/2003 on 03.07.2024 which reads as under:- “11. It has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Shivamani & Another Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police reported in Criminal Appeal No. 3619 of 2023 in para 09 which reads as under:- ‘In State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. In the same judgment, it was pointed out that the Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention of knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. ‘ The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not 6 dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (Supra) and Kanha (Supra), it was observed that while grievous or life- threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.” 13. The injured/applicant Suresh Kumar (PW-1) has suffered grievous injury with fracture of nasal bone. Looking at the nature of the incident and the situation of assault with fists, it does not appear that the intention of the appellants was to cause his death and the above injury was caused in the attempt to do so. In such a situation, the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempt to murder is not found appropriate, rather the crime of the appellants falls under the category of Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code for grievous injury caused by assault with a hard and blunt object. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants is altered/converted to Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. As regards the sentence part for offence under Section 325/34 of IPC, keeping in view that the incident had taken place in May, 2006 and more than 18 ½ years have been passed since then. Further considering the fact that the appellant Shivprasad currently aged more than 47 years and appellant Dwarikaprasad currently aged more than 45 years, they have their family responsibilities, they are facing 7 the lis since 2007 and they were already remained in jail for about 1 month 20 days, in the interest of justice, in considered opinion of this Court, it is appropriate to sentenced the appellants to the period already undergone by them i.e. 1 month 20 days for the offence punishable under Section 325/24 of IPC. However, the fine amount is enhanced from Rs.500 to Rs.5,000/- for offence U/s 325/24 of IPC. In default of payment of the fine amount, they shall liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 4 months. The fine amount already paid by them shall be adjusted in the fine amount imposed upon them by this Court today. It is ordered accordingly. 15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 16.The appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender in this case. Their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Shubham