1 2025:CGHC:11543 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 999 of 2007 1 - Nan Sai, aged about 47 years, S/o Baiju, Occupation-Service, R/o Village-Dharampur, P.S. Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) 2 – Panchram, aged about 22 years, S/o Amar Sai, Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Daldali, P.S. Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Incharge Chowki, Bhatgaon, P.S. Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 07/03/2025 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.2007 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur , District Surguja (C.G.), in Session Case No.146/2006 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: Conviction Sentence & Fine Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.10 17:38:30 +0530 2 U/s 326 of IPC RI for 4 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, 3 months additional RI. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that Jamila Khatoon lodged a First Information Report on 17.07.2005 at Police Outpost Bhatgaon vide Ex.P-6, stating that they had built a new house on the land next to Nansai Gond’s house in Village Vanshipur. Nansai Gond had constructed a porch adjacent to their house’s entrance and had directed the water drainage towards their doorway. On 17.07.2005, she and her husband, Noor Hasan, went to Village Songara on a motorcycle. They returned to their newly built house in Vanshipur at around 3:30 PM and saw that Nansai Gond was roofing his porch. Seeing this, they told him not to direct the water drainage towards their house as it would cause water to accumulate inside. Nansai replied that the water drainage would remain as it was. When her husband objected, a young man, about 27-28 years old, came from Nansai’s house holding an axe and assualted her husband on the back. Meanwhile, Nansai climbed down from the roof while hurling abuses at them and started assaulting her husband with a basula (a sharp-edged tool) on his head, hands, and legs. Soon, five or six other young men arrived with sticks and clubs, abusing them and attacking her husband. Her husband fell to the ground, at which point the attackers fled, saying, “Noor Hasan is dead, let’s run away.” Just then, a man arrived on a motorcycle and, seeing Noor Hasan injured, sent an ambulance from Jarhi Hospital. Noor Hasan was then taken to S.E.C.L. Bhatgaon Hospital in that ambulance for treatment. On the basis of above FIR has been lodged against the appellants and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against them under Sections 147, 148, 325 & 307 R/w Section 149 3 of IPC. 3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. The statement of the appellants was 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 30.10.2007, 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 no case under Section 326 of the IPC can be made out against the appellants rather the maximum case is under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code as the injury caused to the injured Noor Ahmed was caused by a hard and blunt object instead of and pointed and sharp object. Therefore, the conviction under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for the injury of injured Noor Ahmed is not appropriate. He further submits that Appellant Nansai has already remained in jail for 04 months 22 days and appellant Panchram has already remained in jail for 05 months 13 days in jail. Therefore, the conviction under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code may be altered/converted to section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants may sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 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 material available on record including the impugned judgment. 4 8. In this case, Dr. A.K. Singh (PW-7) has given a report (Exhibit P-8) after medically examining the injured Noor Ahmed, stating that he has three injuries as follows:- 1. Four lacerated wounds at the frontal region on the right side of the scalp. Size: 1 ½” x ½” x ½” 2. Pain and swelling at right hand (below the wrist), at right knee, at left ankle. 3. Back pain 9. Doctor A.K. Singh (PW-7) has stated that he referred injured Noor Ahmad to District Hospital Ambikapur for further treatment. Doctor F.H. Firdausi (PW-8) posted in Ambikapur Hospital has advised X-ray examination and CT scan stating that the appellant had injury and pain in his head and both hands. He has certified the bed head ticket (Exhibit P-9). Radiologist Doctor M.K. Jain (PW-3) has given a report (Exhibit P-4) after conducting X-ray examination of Noor Ahmad on 18/07/2005, stating that there was fracture in the second and third meta carpal bone of his right hand. Thus, it is clear that Noor Ahmad had a grievous injury. But it is not reflected from the MLC report and the doctors’ statement that the injuries caused to him were caused by any pointed or sharp object. In the case, it is said that the attack was done with a tangi which had a bent wooden stick attached to it. The grievous injury found on the injured Noor Ahmed is the injury caused by a hard and blunt object. In the above situation, the conviction of the appellants is not made under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code so far as the case of the appellants falls within the ambit of Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants is altered/converted from Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 5 11. As regards the sentence part, keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2005 i.e. about 19-20 years old. Appellant Nansai has already remained in jail for 04 months 22 days and appellant Panchram has already remained in jail for 05 months 13 days in jail. They have no previous criminal record. The fracture found in the injured Noor Ahmed is in the metacarpal of the right hand. Keeping in view all the above facts, it is not appropriate to send back the appellants to jail, therefore, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine amount of Rs.500/- and its default stipulation imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13.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. 14. 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. 15. It is further directed that the sentence awarded to the appellant No.1 Nan Sai shall not effect his service career in any manner. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Shubham