1 2025:CGHC:22774 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 673 of 2005 1 - Ashok Kumar S/o. Narayan Prasad Chandrawanshi, aged about 32 years, R/o. Gandaikhurd, PS Bodla, District Kabirdham (Kawardha) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through PS Bodla, District Kabirdham (Kawardha) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate For State : Mr. T. S. Sahu, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 09/06/2025 Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment dated 11.08.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 6/2005 by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), CG. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 294 IPC RI for 3 months Under Section 307 IPC RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-. In 2 default of fine 6 months additional RI 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Santosh (PW-6) along with his friends Satrudhan (PW-4), Jeetu (PW-1) and Vinod (not examined) was going to Dabrapara on 25.10.2004 to witness the Durga procession. At that time, the appellant assaulted him from behind with stick like thing. On being objected, the appellant filthily abused him and made an assault on his stomach with the knife kept by him resulted into oozing out of blood. He was immediately taken to the hospital, report was lodged and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court under Sections under Sections 294, 324 and 307 IPC followed by framing of charge under Sections 294 and 307 IPC. 3. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded where he pleaded his innocence, false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that statements of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon to uphold the conviction of the appellant. He further submits that the weapon used in commission of the crime has not been seized from the exclusive possession of the appellant. He submits that only one blow was made and that too was on the provocation by the complainant and there was no intention to commit murder of the injured and therefore, ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not attracted to the case of the prosecution. He further submits that at best the act of the accused/appellant would fall under Section 335 IPC as there was no intention on his part to cause any injury to the complainant. He thus submits that either the appeal may be allowed or by convicting the accused/appellant under Section 335 IPC the accused/appellant may be 3 sentenced to the period already undergone which in this case comes to about 15 days keeping in mind the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2004, that no minimum sentence has been prescribed for the said offence. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the Statement of complainant (PW-6) very categorical and has been duly corroborated by the medical evidence. He further submits that the doctor (PW-11) has categorically stated that the injury was found on the vital part of the body of the complainant and that he remained under hospitalization for about one month, and therefore the intention can very well be gathered from the nature of injury itself. He submits that simply because the knife was seized from the spot does not absolve him from the crime in question. Lastly, he submits that mere long pendency of the case can not be the reason to reduce the sentence, and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Jeetu Ram (PW-1) has stated that on the occasion of immersion ceremony of Durga idol when he along with Vinod and Santosh were going towards river, accused/appellant came from behind, pushed him and Vinod, and assaulted complainant Santosh with club. On being asked by complainant as to why he was assaulting, the accused/appellant took out a weapon called gupti and shoved into his stomach. In cross examination he has stated the same thing as in the examination in chief. He has stated that the accused/appellant made the assault to complainant with club and gupti. Khanu (PW-2) has also stated almost the same thing. Rajaram (PW-3) is the witness to seizure of gupti made under Ex. P-2 who has stated that the said weapon was seized from the kitchen garden of one Jageshar. Satrughan (PW-4) has also stated the same thing like PW-1 and PW-6 as regards injury being caused by the accused to the complainant. However, according to this witness, the incident took place as the complainant had not agreed to play the music on the said festival as per 4 the choice of the accused/appellant. Santosh (PW-6) has stated that on the date of incident at about 7 PM when he along with others was going towards the river to enjoy the festive occasion of Durga immersion, the accused/appellant came there carrying some club like object and assaulted him causing injury on his stomach. On being asked, as to why he was assaulting, the accused/appellant hurled abuses and also threatened him of being killed. Thereafter, the accused/appellant took out some knife like object from the club and shoved it in his stomach. According to him, when he tried to ward off the attack, the blow fell on his hand causing injury in the palm. He has further stated that when the accused/appellant was about to repeat the blow, one Santosh snatched the weapon from his hand and threw it in the kitchen garden of one Rajaram and Jageshwar. The injury bled and caused pain and giddiness also. He was then removed to Kawardha hospital by hiring a vehicle however, looking to his injury being grievous he was referred to medical college Raipur where he remained hospitalized for about one month five days requiring surgery. In cross examination also he stood firm to what he stated in examination in chief. 9. Dr. M. R. Deshpandey (PW-11) is the witness who medically examined the complainant and gave his report Ex.P-13 stating that he noticed injury in the stomach of the complainant which was bleeding, and surgery was required to be performed. The said injury could be caused by a sharp edged weapon. While answering the query, this witness vide his report Ex. P-13 has opined that the injury noticed by this witness on the body of the complainant was fatal and had the timely medical aid not been made available, it could have caused death as well. Intestines of the complainant had also come out. He has denied the fact that on account of medical negligence the complication to the complainant had arisen. Dr. Pradeep Pandey (PW-12) has stated that there were multiple injuries on the body of the complainant and the surgery was performed by opening the abdomen. According to this witness, the complainant/injured remained hospitalized in the medical college Raipur from 5 27.10.2004 to 30.11.2004. 10. Having thus heard counsel for the parties and seen the evidence of the witnesses on record particularly the evidence of the complainant (PW-6) as also Jeetu Ram Yadav (PW-1) who were present with him at the relevant time it gets crystallized that when the complainant along with others was going to enjoy the festive occasion of immersion of Durga idol, the accused/appellant came from behind and caused injuries on his stomach with gupti. The evidence of the complainant is fully corroborated by that of PW-1 and PW-2. The evidence of the doctor (PW-11) who medically examined the complainant and gave his report Ex.P-13 goes to show that he noticed injury in the stomach of the complainant which was bleeding, and surgery was required to be performed, and the said injury could be caused by a sharp edged weapon. While answering the query, this witness vide his report Ex. P-13 has opined that the injury noticed by this witness on the body of the complainant was fatal and had the timely medical aid not been made available, it could have caused death as well. Intestines of the complainant had also come out. He has denied the suggestion that on account of medical negligence the complication to the complainant had arisen. So also, the evidence of another doctor (PW-12) makes it clear that there were multiple injuries on the body of the complainant and the surgery was performed by opening the abdomen and that the complainant/injured remained hospitalized in the medical college Raipur from 27.10.2004 to 30.11.2004. Thus, from the evidence of theses witnesses and looking to the weapon with which the injuries were caused, the intention on the part of the accused/appellant to cause injuries which could be fatal to life, is writ large. Thus, the view taken by the trial Court holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 307 IPC does not appear to suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference with the same in this appeal. Being so the conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 307 IPC is hereby maintained. 11. As regards sentence, looking to the fact that the incident had taken place in the 6 year 2004, that by now the accused must be leading a settled life burden with several family responsibilities, that the incident appears to have taken place on account of some tibial altercation on the festive occasion while the people were going to immerge the Durga idol and also considering the fact that no minimum sentence has been prescribed for the offence alleged, the sentence needs suitable reduction. The intention of the legislature while precribing the sentencing period has been left upon the Court to imposed the sentence looking to the gravity of the case. It can be the maximum and the minimum as well depending upon the manner in which the offence has been committed. This Court feels it apposite to recount certain viewpoints expressed by Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer while penning an authoritative the judgment in case of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1926, which are taken down as under:- “Western jurisdiction and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re- culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 7 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : 'If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.'” 12. The similar issue has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the matter of Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP reported in (2004) 7 SCC 257 where it has been held as under:- “8.This brings us to the next question in regard to the reduction of sentence made by the High Court. In criminal cases awarding of sentence is not a mere formality. Where the statute has given the court a choice of sentence with maximum and minimum limit presented then an element of discretion is vested with the court. This discretion can not be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically. It will have to be exercised taking into consideration the gravity of offence, the manner in which it is committed, the age, the sex of the accused, in other words, the sentence to be awarded will have to be considered in the background of the fact of each case and the court while doing so should bear in mind the principle of proportionality. The sentence awarded should be neither excessively harsh nor ridiculously low.” 13. Thus, what is essentially to be seen in imposing the sentence is the nature and gravity of offence, penalty provided for the offence, manner of commission of offence, proportionality between crime and punishment, character of the offender, age and sex of the offender, antecedents if any, possibility of reforms, impact of crime on society etc. and the Court has to strike a balance between crime and punishment. 8 14. As far as this case is concerned, nothing contrary has been pointed out by the State which can come in the way of reduction of sentence imposed on the appellant. Thus, this Court thinks it just and proper that after such a long lapse of time and also keeping in mind the other consideration referred to above, this Court is of the opinion that it would be end of justice to reduced the sentence to RI for one year from that of three year as imposed by the trial Court. However, the fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine accused/appellant shall undergo additional two months rigorous imprisonment. Order accordingly. Out of this amount, Rs. 8,000/- would be paid to the victim as compensation in terms of Section 481 B.N.N.S. to be paid by the accused. Appeal thus allowed in part as indicated above. Seized property be disposed of in terms of judgment of the learned trial Court. 15. It is reported that the Appellant is on bail. He shall immediately surrender before the Trial Court or shall be taken into custody forthwith for undergoing remaining part of the sentence as imposed by this Court. 16. Record be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan