1 2025:CGHC:15504 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1094 of 2007 • Bihari S/o Shri Jainath, aged about 25 years, R/o. Village Panchayat- Patiadand, P.S.-Jhilmili, District- Surguja (C.G.) ---- Appellant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station- Jhilmili, District- Surguja (C.G.) ----Respondent/State _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, PL _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 02.04.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 26.11.2007 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Surajpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.356/2007, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 325 of IPC R.I. for 2 years and 6 months with fine amount of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional 2 S.I. for 10 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.08.2007 at 4.00 pm complainant- Dhansai (PW-1) was cutting the grass in his field, at that time one Dhannu Kanwar came and asked the complainant to do field work situated at School Dand. Thereafter, both had gone towards field side at School Dand and were inspecting the field at that time the appellant was grazing buffaloes. Then, the appellant abused the complainant with filthy language and threatened him for life and thereby assaulted him with club (lathi), as a result of which, the complainant received injuries on his left eye, back side and also on his head. The matter was reported to the Police Station-Jhilmili by the complainant and the FIR (Ex. P/1 ) was registered by ASI- B.L. Kurre(PW-5) as Crime No. 42/07 and on the same day the complainant was sent for medical treatment to Community Health Centre, Bhaiyathan and the medical examination was conducted by Dr. Maheshwar Singh and gave his report vide Ex. P/5. On 07.09.2007, a spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/6 by PW-5 in presence of the witnesses. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and one article i.e. club (lathi) was seized vide Ex. P/7 in presence of the witnesses. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur, thereafter the matter was committed to the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Surajpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) and the appellant was put to trial for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. 4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many 3 as 07 witnesses to prove its case against the appellant. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded his innocence and false implication in this case. However, in his defence the appellant did not adduce any witness. 5. The learned trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Court has not properly evaluated the material available on record. The learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant specifically, when the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and thus, the appellant should have been given benefit of doubt. It is clear that PW-2- Dhanuram has been turned hostile and PW-3- Ramdayal i.e., both of them have not supported the prosecution case. He further submits that the statement of the complainant (PW-1) is full of contradictions and omissions, learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact that there was land dispute between the appellant and the complainant, therefore, he has been falsely implicated. Learned trial Court also did not appreciate this fact that there is delay in lodging in F.I.R. and also seizure of club (lathi) has not been proved, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. 4 Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 325 of IPC, as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, the incident took place in the year 2007, this appeal is also pending since 2007, the appellant is now aged more than 40 years and he remained in jail during trial for near about 02 months and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him, while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Ex adverso, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the instant appeal and appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. It is clear from the record of learned Trial Court that it framed charge against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and it is also clear that prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses to prove its case against the accused person/appellant. Learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. 5 10. It is clear from evidence of complainant- Samal Sai (PW-01), as he has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that on the date of incident, he was cutting the grass outside of his house, meanwhile, one Dhannu Kanwar came and asked the complainant to do work in field situated at School Dand. Thereafter, both went towards field side at School Dand where the appellant was grazing buffaloes. After seeing him, the appellant abused by using filthy language to the complainant and threatened him for life and thereby assaulted him by club (lathi), as a result of which, the complainant sustained injuries on his left eye, back side and also on his head. He further stated that report lodged by him before the Police Station- Bhaiyathan of the incident, FIR is Ex. P/1, in which he admitted his signature on A to A part. Thereafter, being medically examined by the doctor, he was admitted in Community Health Centre, Bhaiyathan hospital for about 08 days. 11. It is clear from evidence of Dhanuram (PW-2) & Ram Dayal (PW-3) stated that they have not supported the prosecution case, but PW-4 (Rajnath) stated in his deposition that he saw that the accused/ appellant assaulted his father (complainant) by club (lathi) in front of school. 12. Dr. Maheshwar Singh (PW-6), who examined the complainant- Samal Sai (PW-01) on 07.08.2007 at about 9.30 pm, found injuries on his left eye and back side, gave his report vide Ex. P/5. Thus, learned trial court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence including the medical reports and medical evidence, rightly found that appellant assaulted the complainant by club (lathi), from which he sustained injuries and thereby rightly convicted the appellant for offence 6 under Section 325 of IPC and did not commit any illegality or infirmity in its findings as regards conviction of the appellant. So, the conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed. 13. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2007 and nearly 18 years have rolled by since then, this appeal is also pending since 2007. The appellant is now aged more than 40 years; appellant has remained in jail during trial for near about two months, he has no criminal antecedents and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him, while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Hence, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded under Section 325 of appellant by the Trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 14. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 325 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the Trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court shall remain intact. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. The appellant be set free, if not required in any other case. 15. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 7 16. 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 AMIT PATEL Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL