1 2025:CGHC:3985 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 385 of 2005 1 - Fagun Ram @ Burhwa, S/o Amar Singh Gond, aged about 35 years, Caste Gond, R/o Village Parsa, PS Prem Nagar, District Sarguja (C.G.) Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through PS Premnagar, District Sarguja (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anjiv Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 22/01/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2005 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Surajpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Session Trial No.202/2004, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with default stipulations. Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.03.2004, when the injured Ghasiya Ram had gone to the house of the accused at about 8 pm, a quarrel took place concerning grazing of banana by Ghasiya Ram’s cattle from the field of the accused, as a result of which the accused assaulted Ghasiya Ram by wood stick, upon which he sustained severe injuries, thereafter the matter was reported to the concerned police Station. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. PW-5 Alam Sai, who lodged the report, has not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he has not seen the occurrence. The injured PW-7 Ghasiya Ram himself stated that he was in drunken condition and when the accused told him to go and when he was going, he fell down on doorway due to darkness and sustained injury. The assaulted weapon wood stick (lathi) has also not been recovered from the accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely 3 appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. 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 Trial Court framed charges under Section 307 of IPC against the accused and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. The victim Ghasiya Ram (PW-7) stated in his examination-in- chief that on the date of incident, he was sitting in front of house of the appellant, then the accused assaulted him with club (lathi) and he sustained injuries in his head. Dr. S. K. Gupta (PW-9) examined Ghasiya Ram on 07.03.2004 and found swelling in his head in right side occipital region and he referred him for District Hospital, Ambikapur. He also found one abrasion in right hand and gave his report (Ex-P/5). Dr. M. K. Jain (PW-12) stated that as per x-ray report of Ghasiya Ram dated 09.03.2004, he found fracture in right fronto temporal region and gave his report (Ex- P/16. 8. Thus, looking to the reports of both the doctors, it is proved that on the date of incident, the injured Ghasiya Ram sustained 4 grievous injuries on his head, but Ghasiya Ram (PW-7) himself stated in his cross-examination that it is true that he was sleeping in appellant’s house in drunken condition and when the accused told him to go and when he was about to go, he fell down due to darkness and sustained injury from doorway (choukhat). PW-2 Thakur Ram stated that the accused assaulted the injured Ghasiya Ram with club. Shobhit Ram (PW-3), Jagful (PW-4) have only stated about injuries of Ghasiya Ram. Alam Sai (PW-5) lodged FIR (Ex-P/3) and he stated that he heard noise of club. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he has not seen the incident and only heard the noise. Asaram (PW-6) has also not stated about the incident. 9. It is clear from the statement of PW-7 Ghasiya Ram that he admitted this suggestion of defence that he sustained injuries from doorway (choukhat) and Dr. S. K. Gupta (PW-9) also admitted this suggestion of defence in para 6 that injury may come if somebody dashes against thick wood. The prosecution did not re-examine Ghasiya Ram on this point that in the examination-in-chief, he sustained injuries due to assault by the accused, but in cross-examination, he stated that due to darkness, he fell down and sustained injuries so it is clear that the complainant himself has not remained firm in his statement and he admitted the suggestion of defence that he fell down due to darkness and received injury from doorway (choukhat). The defence witness DW-1 Patiya Bai, wife of appellant stated that on 5 the date of incident, the injured was trying to outrage her modesty and when her husband came, then the injured Ghasiya Ram was trying to run, upon which he fell down and received injury from doorway. she denied this suggestion that her husband assaulted Ghasiya Ram. 10. On close scrutiny of statement of injured himself and DW-1 and other witnesses, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the on the date of incident, the accused assaulted Ghasiya Ram, but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the cross-examination of the injured and the statement of defence witnesses so the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable. 11. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 307 of IPC. 12. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of 6 weeks from today. 13. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala