1 2025:CGHC:37843 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 769 of 2005 Krishn Kumar Patel, S/o Kripa Ram Patel, aged about 33 years, R/o Katiyapati, P.S. Baloda Bazar, District Raipur. ... Appellant. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Baloda Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) ... Respondent. For Appellant : Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shailesh Puriya, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment on Board 01.08.2025 1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.08.2005 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar in ST No.51/2005, whereby, the accused/appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. 2. This is an admitted fact that injured Kheekhram (PW-1), Complainant Raju (PW-7) and the appellant are acquainted with each other and all are resident of Village Khatiyapati. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=CHATTISGARH, c=IN Date: 2025.08.04 10:56:52 +0530 2 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.11.2004 at about 1:45 noon, injured Kheekhram (PW-1) along with complainant Raju (PW-7) went for celebrating Guara-Guari Pooja. Thereafter, when they were returning and reached near the house of complainant, the accused/appellant came there and on account of old enmity, assaulted two times in the back of Kheekhram by using axe (Tangiya) with intention to kill him. In the meantime, complainant Raju intervened in the matter and chased the appellant by using club, then appellant thrown the axe near the place of incident and ran away from the spot. 4. After the incident, the complainant and other witnesses took injured Kheekhram to Hospital for treatment and the complainant lodged the FIR on the same day i.e. 13.11.2004 at 2:45 PM at Police Station Baloda Bazar vide Ex.P-4. Injured Kheekhram (PW-1) was medically examined by Dr. R. S. Tiwari (PW-10) who submitted his medical report (Ex.P-8) and found two incised wound on the left side and right side of the head and occipital region in the size of 8½ x ½ cm in left side and 5½ x 1 c.m in the right side. The injured was also admitted for treatment in the hospital from 13.11.2004 to 26.11.2004 and to prove the same the prosecution has filed discharge-ticket vide Ex.P-11. Dr. Naresh Kumar Kisnani (PW-13), Neurosurgeon has also examined Kheekhram (PW-1) who vide his medical reports (Ex.18) opined that Kheekhram (PW-1) suffered injury over left ear which could have been caused by hard and blunt object. The Tangiya thrown by appellant was handed over by the complainant Raju (PW-7) to the police vide seizure memo (Ex.P-2) and same was examined by Dr. R. S. Tiwari (PW-10) who gave his report 3 vide Ex.P-10 opining that injuries caused to the injured could be caused by such weapon. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P-12. Statement of the complainant was recorded. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court, which in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. 5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, the appellant has stated that he has been falsely implicated and taken a defence that on the date of incident, injured Kheekhram himself on account of old enmity chased the appellant in order to assault him and while running, Kheekhram dashed with stone and sustained such injuries. He also adduced one witness in his defence namely, Madhusudan Sahu (DW-1). 6. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the initial paragraph of this judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. However, he submits that he is not challenging the impugned judgment and conviction on merits and would confine his argument to the sentence part only. The trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/-. The appellant has already paid the fine amount. Considering the age of the appellant, the fact that he is facing criminal trial since 2005 and that he remained in jail for about 1 year and 3 months i.e. from 14.11.2004 to 4 26.08.2005 and 27.08.2005 to 19.12.2005, learned counsel only emphasized that the sentence already undergone by him may be suffice to meet the ends of justice. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel would support the impugned judgment. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of injured witness Kheekhram (PW-1), complainant Raju (PW-7), Dr. R. S. Tiwari (PW-10) and Dr. Naresh Kumar Kisnani (PW-13), considering the nature of injuries, further considering that FIR (Ex.P-4) was lodged immediately on the same day after the incident and that the eye witness Raju (PW-7) has categorically stated about the happening of the incident and assault committed by the appellant, this Court is of the view that prosecution has successfully established the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question and thus the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC. 11. As regards the question of sentence, from perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record, has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. It is also noted that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2005 and thereafter about 20 years have elapsed. Considering that the appellant has already suffered imprisonment for 1 year and 3 months i.e. 5 from 14.11.2004 to 26.08.2005 and from 27.08.2005 to 19.12.2005, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact. 12. For the foregoing, conviction imposed on the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is maintained and the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 13. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 14. Appellant is reported to be on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds shall remain in operation for a further period of six months as per provision contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 15. Let a copy of this judgment with original records be sent to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay