1 2025:CGHC:18619 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1046 of 2007 1. Indranath Yadaw, S/o Shri Rampyare, aged about 31 years, 2. Vinod Kumar Yadaw, S/o Shri Rampyare, aged about 24 years. 3. Tejram Yadaw, S/o Rameshwar yadaw, aged about 25 years. All R/o Village Khairapath, Thana - Sanna, Distt.-Jashpur, (C.G.) --- Appellants versus  State Of Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 1124 of 2007 1. Arjun Yadav, S/o Shri Puran Yadav, aged about 29 years, Occupation – Agriculture. 2. Bhanupratap Yadav, S/o Shri Rampreet Yadav, aged about 30 years, Occupation – Agriculture. Both R/o village – Khairapath, P.S. Sanna, District Jaspur (C.G.) ---Appellants Versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Sanna, District Jashpur (C.G.) --- Respondent 2 For Appellants : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey (Judgment on Board ) 24.04.2025 1. Since the aforesaid criminal appeals arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence, they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. The aforesaid appeals are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.10.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.26/2007 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for commission of offence and sentenced them as described below. Conviction Sentence Under Section 326 of IPC for appellant No.1 and 2 in CRA. No.1046/2007 R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. Under Section 325 of IPC for appellant No.1 in CRA. Nos.1046/2007 and 1124/2007 R.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. Under Section 323 of IPC for appellant No.3 in CRA No.1046/2007 and appellant No.2 in CRA No.1124/2007 R.I. for 03 months and fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 15 days. 3 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the date of incident i.e. on 29.08.2006 at around 8.00 PM, complainant Ramswarup Yadaw and his fried Yunath Yadaw were going to village Khairapath on his own vehicle after closing his medical shop. When they reached near Mahuwa Siman, Khairapath at around 9.00 PM, suddenly Indranath Yadaw (A-1 in Cr.A.No.1046/2007), Vinod Yadav (A-2 in CRA No.1046/2007, Bhanupratap Yadaw (A-2 in CRA No.124/2007), Arjun Yadaw (A-1 in CRA No.1124/2007), co- accused Satyanarayan @ Konda Yadav, Tejraj Yadaw (A-3 in CRA No.1046/2007) and co-accused Mandeep Yadav came on road, intercepted them holding rod, club and axe in their hand, whom complainant identified with the help of light of his motorcycle, and then accused/appellant Indranath Yadaw (A-1 in Cr.A.No.1046/2007) assaulted complainant by rod on his hand as a result of which complainant and Yunath Yadaw fell down on ground. Thereafter, accused/ appellant Indranath Yadaw assaulted complainant multiple times with rod on his head and then by knife. Accused/appellants Indranath Yadaw and Vinod Yadav also assaulted complainant over his abdomen with knife and axe. That apart, accused/appellant Satyanarayan, Bhanupratap, Mandeep and Arjun also assaulted complainant by club and 4 rod. When Yunath Yadaw tried to intervene the matter, accused/appellant Bhanupratap also assaulted him with club and extended threat to kill him if he depose against them. In the meanwhile, other co-accused persons namely Rampreet Yadaw, Rampyare Yadaw, Goutam Yadaw and Ganga Ram also came there and they too started saying to kill the complainant and Yunath Yadaw and throw them away. At this, the complainant Ram Swarup shouted “bacho bachao” and then accused persons ran away. Thereafter, one Bhukhan reside nearby the place of occurrecne came there along with his family members and took the complainant and Yunath Yadav to his house and informed the incident to family members of complainant Ram Swarup and then a complaint was made in police station Sanna under Ex.P-26, which was reduced in writing in FIR under Crime No.21/2006 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 506-B, and 323 of IPC. & the matter was then investigated. 4. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants and other co-accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 506-B, 323 and 307 of IPC before the jurisdictional Court and charges were framed against the accused/appellants and other co- accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 341, 506-B, 323 5 and 307/149 of IPC by the trial Court. 5. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment while acquitting the other co- accused persons, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law and also not sustainable in the eye of law. The independent witness to the incident namely Chhatrapati Yadaw (PW-1) and Abdul (PW-2) have not supported the seizure memo and the same got signed by the witnesses at police station. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court while convicting the accused/appellants relied upon the statement of interested witnesses whose evidence cannot be relied upon unless being corroborated by the other substantive piece of evidence. The learned trial Court while convicting the accused/appellants did not 6 appreciate oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside and the appellants deserve for acquittal. In alternate, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellant Tejram Yadaw (A-3 in CRA No.1046/2007), Bhanupratap Yadaw (A-2 in CRA No.1124/2007) under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 months, appellant Arjun Yadaw (A-1 in CRA No.1124/2007) under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 06 months & appellant Indranath Yadaw and Vinod Kumar Yadaw (A-1 and A-2 in CRA No.1046/2007) have been convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. Further, appellant Tejram Yadaw, Arjun Yadaw and Bhanuprapat Yadaw have served the sentence imposed upon them, appellant Indranath Yadaw and Vinod Kumar Yadaw remained in jail for more than 10 months, the incident took place in the year 2006, by now appellant Indranath Yadaw and Vinod Kumar Yadaw are aged around 50 and 43 years respectively, they were granted bail by this Court and never misused the liberty granted to them, therefore, ends of justice would be served if their sentences 7 may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel strongly opposed the prayer of the appellants and submits that the learned trial Court having considered the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and no interference is called for by this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellants and other co-accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 341, 506-B, 323, 325 and 307/149 of IPC & after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, it has convicted the appellants as described in para 1 of this judgment. 11. The learned trial Court in order to convict the accused/appellants minutely appreciated the evidence of injured/complainant Ramswarup Yadaw (PW-4) and injured Yunath Yadaw (PW5), who have categorically deposed against the accused/appellants attributing their role in the incident, mode and manner in which the incident took place and in cross-examination these witnesses remain firmed to what has been stated in their examination-in-chief. Further, 8 the evidence of these witnesses is well corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Anuranjan Kujur (PW-9) who medically examined the PW-4 and PW-5 & gave his report under Ex.P-36 and P-27 respectively, noticing multiple injuries on right leg, left leg, back side of head, right side of temporal region, dislocation of right shoulder, left scapular region, left underarm, left lumber region, right lumber region, right forearm, right upper arm, right side of chest and right hypochondrium of PW-4 & blood clots in both the legs and contusion in 1/rd part of leg of PW-5. 12. The defence has cross-examined these witnesses at length but has not been able to elicit anything in their cross- examination to discredit their testimonies especially to the fact that the appellants have not caused injuries to complainant and his friend. The finding of learned trial Court in acquitting the accused/appellants and other co-accused persons from the offence under Sections 147, 146, 341, 506-B, 307 read with section 149 and convicting the accused/appellants as aforestated is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and has rightly convicted the accused/appellants as per their criminal act. 13. As regards sentence, it is apparent that appellants Tejram Yadaw (A-3 in CRA No.1046/2007), Arjun Yadav and 9 Bhanupratap Yadaw (A-1 and A-2 in CRA No.1124/2007) have served the sentence imposed upon them, and appellants Indranath Yadaw & Vinod Kumar Yadaw (A-1 and A-2 in CRA No.1046/2007) remained in jail for more than 10 months, the incident took place in the year 2006 and by now 19 years have rolled on since then, the appeals are pending since 2007, by now the appellant Indranath Yadaw and Vinod Kumar Yadaw are aged around 50 and 43 years respectively, they were granted bail by this Court and never misused the liberty granted to them, therefore, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them under Section 326 of IPC. 14. In the result :-  CRA No.1046/2007 is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of appellant No.1- Indranath Yadaw under Sections 326, 325 of IPC and appellant No.2 - Vinod Kumar Yadaw under Sections 326, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them under Section 326 of IPC. However, fine amount imposed thereunder by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. The appeal in respect of appellant No.3-Tejram Yadaw for offence under Section 323 is hereby dismissed. Appellant 10 Tejram Yadaw is reported to have served the entire sentence imposed upon him.  CRA No.1124/2007 is dismissed. Conviction and sentence of appellant No.1-Arjun Yadaw under Section 325 of IPC and that of appellant No.2- Bhanupratap Yadaw under Section 323 of IPC are hereby maintained. The appellants are reported to have served the entire sentence imposed upon them. 15. The appellant No.1-Indranath Yadaw and appellant No.2 - Vinod Kumar Yadaw in CRA No.1046/2007 are already on bail. Their bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 16. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE