1 2025:CGHC:14139 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 875 of 200 7 1. Manoj Kushwaha S/o Raghunath Kushwaha aged about 19 years 2. Ashok Kumar Kushwaha S/o Raghunath Kushwaha aged about 24 years Both are R/o Village Wadraffnagar (Goutiyapara), P.S. Bas- antpur, District – Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : P.S. Basantpur, District – Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent/ State For Appellants : Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 24 / 03 /202 5 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2007 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ramanujganj, District-Sarguja (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 111/2005 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.25 18:06:58 +0530 2 sentenced the appellants as under: Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 307/34 of IPC (to cause injury to Indrajeet) R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for two months. U/s 323/34 of IPC (to cause injury to Mahavir) Fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for two months. U/s 323/34 of IPC (to cause injury to Ramlal) Fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for two months. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the date of the incident i.e. 03.08.2004 at about 7:00 am, complainant Mahabir (PW-3) along with his brothers namely Inrajeet (PW-5) and Ramlal (PW-4) working in the field, that time, both the appellants armed with clubs came to the field called bad and vulgar names and further prevented them from ploughing the filed to which they claimed to be their own land. After a hot altercation, both the appellants assaulted the complainant and both brothers with the means of clubs. Indrajeet was assaulted by them causing grievous hurt and endangering his life. On the basis of complaint, FIR was lodged and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed. 3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. The statements 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. 3 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2007, the learned Judge has acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 294 of IPC. However, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that no case is made out against the appellant for the offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC at most the case is made out under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code as the appellants had no intention of causing the death of Indrajeet and the appellants assaulted the victim by means of a stick. Therefore, the conviction under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code for the injury of injured is not appropriate. He next submits that there was a dispute between the parties regarding land and on the report of the appellants, a case was also filed against the complainant party in which they were also convicted. He further submits that the appellants have already remained in jail for about 42 days. Therefore, the conviction under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code may be altered/converted to section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants may sentenced to the period already undergone by them. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Kishan and State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh and Others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2127. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 4 material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. Dr. Govind Singh (PW-8) has stated that he conducted medical examination of the injured Indrajeet (PW-5) on 03.08.2004 and gave a report vide Ex.P-8. According to which he was in an unconscious state, there was a swelling of 4x4 cm in the middle of the back of his head and a swelling of 2x2 cm on the forehead. There was an abrasion of 4x1 cm around the fifth rib on the right side of the chest. If he had not been referred for immediate treatment, his death was likely. 9. Dr. S.N. Madharia (PW-11) while examining the injured Indrajeet (PW-5) on 06.08.2004 certified the discharge ticket Ex.P-14 and stated that the injured was admitted on 03.08.2004, bleeding from his nose, he was unconscious, CT scan of the head was done, there was a blood clot in the parietal-occipital part of the left side of the head, an operation was done. The blood clot was so big that the entire brain was compressed, if the clot was not removed, it would have damaged the brain, and his injury was fatal. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there was a dispute between the parties regarding land and on the report of the appellants, a case was also filed against the complainant party in which they were also convicted. From the perusal of the statements of Mahavir Prasad (PW-3), Ramlal (PW-4) and Indrajeet (PW-5), it is evident that on the report of the appellants, a case was also filed against them. Apart from this, First Information Report (Exhibit P-2) and statements of Investigating Officer, Ramsai Pankra (PW-10), Patwari, Om Narayan Singh (PW- 9), it is found that the appellants' party had sown crops on the land over which there was a dispute between the two 5 parties. The injured Indrajeet (PW-5) himself stated in his statement that after the incident of assault, from the spot, he went to his house riding a bicycle. It is also noteworthy that the assault was committed with sticks and when the assault took place between the parties, there was a land dispute. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Kishan (supra), while dealing with the case of acquittal of accused persons under Section 307/149 of IPC has held in para 7 which reads as under: “7. On the first question as to acquittal of the accused under s.307/149 IPC, some significant aspects may be borne in mind. Under s.307 IPC what the Court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge or the accused must be such as is necessary constitute' murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". Under s. 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used. motive for the crime,severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. In this case, two parties in the course of a fight inflicted on each other injuries both serious and minor. The accused though armed with ballam never used the sharp edge of it. They used only the blunt side of it despite they being attacked by the other side. They suffered injuries but not provoked or tempted to use the cutting edge of the weapon. It is very very significant. It seems 6 to us that they had no intention to commit murder. They had no motive either. The fight as the High Court has observed, might have been a sudden flare up. Where the fight is accidental owing to a sudden quarrel, the conviction under s. 307 is generally not called for. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb the acquittal of accused under s. 307 IPC. 12. In the matter of Mohan Chandaniya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRA No.452/2003 on 03.07.2024, this Court has held in paragraph 11 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 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 7 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. Thus, in light of the above judgments, looking to the nature of the incident and the situation of assault with a stick, it does not appear that the intention of the appellants was to cause the death of injured Intrajeet (PW-5) and the said injuries were caused in the attempt to do so. In such a situation, the conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code for an attempt to murder is not found appropriate, rather the crime of the appellants falls under the category of Section 325/34 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. However, looking to the material available on record, the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 (two times) is hereby affirmed for causing injury to Mahavir (PW-3) and Ramlal (PW-4). 14. As regards the sentence part for the offence under Section 325/34 of IPC, keeping in view that the incident had taken place in the year 2004 about 20 years ago and further considering the fact that appellant Manoj Kumar is currently aged about 39 years and appellant Ashok Kumar is currently aged about 44 years, they have their family responsibilities, they are facing the lis since 2004, and they have already remained in jail for about 42 days, in the 8 interest of justice, in considered opinion of this Court, it is appropriate to sentence the appellants to the period already undergone by them i.e. 42 days for the offence punishable under Section 325/24 of IPC. However, a fine of Rs.10,000/- is imposed upon each of the appellants for offence U/s 325/24 of IPC. In default of payment of the fine amount, they shall be liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 4 months. Fine, if any, deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted in the fine imposed by this Court today. 15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 16.The appellants are on bail. If the fine is not deposited within 60 days from today, the appellants’ bail bonds shall stand cancelled, and the fine will be recovered as per law. 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 H.L. Sahu