1 2025:CGHC:18403 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.901 of 2007 1 - Chandrahas @ Jani, S/o Rahus, aged about 18 years 2 – Manthar @ Mahendra, S/o Chakradhar Gada, aged about 24 years 3 - Anil S/o Chabilal Oriya, aged about 23 years 4 – Dinda @ Bhursaketu, S/o Pichlu Gada, aged about 21 years All Permanent R/o Bhurshagudda, Thana Sindhekela, District Balangir, Orissa Temporary R/o Sector-5, Cross Street-4, Oriya Basti, Bhilai, Thana Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Rahul Arun Kochar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 23/04/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2007 passed by the learned Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 9th Additional Session Judge (Fast Track), Durg (C.G.) in ST No.58/2004, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and RI for 3 months, respectively, with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.10.2003, the complainants G. Vijay Kumar and Teepu had gone to their friend Gajal Sona’s house and there was previous dispute between Gajal Sona and the appellant Jani. In the night at about 21 – 22 pm, quarrel/maarpeet took place between the appellant Jani and Gajal Sona, upon which the complainants tried to pacify the matter, at that time the other appellants came there and assaulted them by club, hand, fist etc., as a result of which Teepu sustained grievous injuries on his head, whereas G. Vijay Kumar also sustained injuries. Thereafter they were taken to the hospital and the matter was reported to the concerned police station, upon which a case was registered against the appellants. After investigation, 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/appellant, 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 3 available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The statements of the complainants were recorded after about one month. The injuries sustained by the complainants are not dangerous to life and are only simple in nature, despite the same the appellants have been convicted for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Alternatively Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident took place in the year 2003, this appeal is pending since 2007 and the appellants have remained in jail for 83 days and they did not misuse the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 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 appellant. 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 framed charges under Sections 294, 506-B, 323 read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC 4 against the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellants under Sections 294 & 506-B of IPC and convicted the appellants under Section 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC and sentenced them, as described in para 1 of the judgment. 7. The complainant Teepu (PW-5) stated that on the date of incident, the appellants assaulted him by club, as such he sustained injuries on his head and he was admitted in Sector-9, Hospital, Bhilai. G. Vijay Kumar (PW-6) also supported the statement of the complainant and stated that the accused Manthar assaulted him by club (lathi), as such he also sustained injuries. 8. Dr. S. A. Singh (PW-10) stated that on 26.10.2003, he examined G. Vijay Kumar and found lacerated wound on his head and gave his report (Ex-P/10-A) and he referred him to Sector-9, Hospital, Bhilai. Dr. Smt. M. Saraswati stated that she examined Teepu on 27.10.2003 and she found lacerated would on his head and she advised for x-ray and gave her report (Ex-P/1). She stated that the nature of injury was dependent upon x-ray report and CT scan report. 9. Dr. M. K. Dwivedi (PW-2) stated that he conducted CT scan of G. Vijya Kumar and CT scan report was normal and he gave his report (Ex-P/5). Dr. Subodh Hiran (PW-3) stated that Teepu was admitted in hospital on 27.10.2003 and he was discharged on 5 29.10.2003. In the cross-examination, Dr. Subodh Hiran stated that on 29.10.2003 Teepu himself got discharged and went to home. The other medical report was not produced by the prosecution. Thus considering the statements of the both injured persons and statement of all 3 doctors, it is not proved that on the date of incident, Teepu sustained any grievous injury or his injuries were dangerous to life. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sivamani and another vs State represented by Inspector of Police, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1581, held in para 9 as under:- “9. 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 or 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 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.” 11. In light of the above principle, it is clear that in the case in hand, the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that on the date of incident, Teepu sustained grievous injuries, but it is clear from the 6 statement of both the injured persons that on the date of incident, the appellants assaulted them by club, as such both injured persons sustained injuries, but the injuries were not grievous in nature, as such offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out against the appellants, however the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC is affirmed. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants is altered from Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC to Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC (Two times). 12. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2003, this appeal is pending since 2007 and the appellants have remained in jail for 83 days and they did not misuse the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them 13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is modified to the extent indicated above. 14. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each before the court concerned forthwith. The bail bond furnished by the appellants 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 7 aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. 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