1 2025:CGHC:22775 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 466 of 2005 1 - Mohan Das @ Dhanna S/o Shri Mangal Das, Aged about 21 years, at present 22 years, resident of village Borsibhata, Thana Pulgaon, District Durg (CG) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Neeta Tulsiyani, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 09/06/2025 1. This is an appeal preferred by the accused/appellants under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment impugned dated 21.04.2005 passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Durg (CG) in Sessions Trial No. 155/2004. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentenced him to undergo RI for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulations. 2 2. Fact of the case in nutshell is that the complainant Mahendra Kumar Banjare was residing in Borsibhatha and doing work of tiles. On 14.05.2004 at about 5.45 pm he reached near the Borsibhatha chowk, at that time the appellant Mohan Das @ Dhanna due to previous enmity with intention to commit murder, assaulted the complainant Mahendra Kumar (PW-1) with the help of an iron Khukhri as result of which he sustained injuries on his hand and leg. The complaint was lodged on the same day by the complainant and an FIR was registered. Injured / complainant was medically examined by Dr. A. P. Sawant (PW-13). Statement of complainant was recorded and seizure of iron Khukhri was made. Appellant was arrested on 15.05.2004 and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The appellant was charged for an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and under Section 25 (1-B)(B) r/w Section 4 of Arms Act. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case, and claimed trial. 4. By the judgment impugned learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellant under Sections 307 & 25 (1-B)(B) r/w Section 4 of Arms Act and held him guilty of under Section 324 of IPC and imposed the sentence on him as described above which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of the appellant is erroneous, contrary to the evidence and is bad in law and the prosecution was not able to bring home the guilt of accused person beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the statement of prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence. Alternatively he submits that the conviction is only under Section 324 IPC which intends no minimum sentence. The appellant remained in jail 3 for 14 days from 15.05.2004 to 28.05.2004. He was young boy of 21 years at the time of incident and now he is at mature age. He submits that considering the entire aspect of the matter, mitigating circumstances, the period of sentence in the event the appeal is having been dismissed, the period of sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine. 6. Learned counsel for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that from the statement of injured Mahendra Kumar (PW-1) the case against the appellant is established, his statement is also corroborated by the statement of doctor (PW-13) who has given a categorical statement that Mahendra Kumar sustained injuries, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The first question as to whether the appellant is the author of the crime or not. The incident has occurred on 14.05.2004 and immediately the FIR was lodged. Injured- Mahendra Kumar (PW-1) in his statement categorically deposed that he knows the appellant, the incident is of 14.05.2004 at about 4.30 or 5 pm. He was going to Supela to fetch woods and he was smoking at Pan shop of Doman at that time the appellant came and asked him to talk for 10 minutes. On account of some previous altercation, the appellant assaulted 5-7 times on the person of PW-1. He categorically deposed that he was assaulted on his left hand 4 times and one time in his leg. He further deposed that he sustained injuries on his person and thereafter he went to his home and went to lodge a report at Police Station Pulgaon. He stated that he remained in hospitalization for 8-9 days. Though in cross-examination nothing incriminating is brought on record to disbelieve his statement. His statement is also corroborated by Dr. A. 4 P. Sawant (PW-13) who found the following injuries on the person of the injured:- 1. There was an incised wound measuring 5×2×1/2 cm on the left arm from which blood was oozing. 2- Incised wound measuring 4×2×1/2 cm on left hand below the bulb from which blood was oozing. 3- Incised wound measuring 2×1/2×1/2 cm was there on left anterior part over bulb from which blood was oozing. 4- Incised wound measuring 2×1/2×1/2 cm was present on left palm on little finger from which blood was oozing. 5- Incised wound 2×1/2×1/2 cm was above the tibia, below the knee from which blood was oozing. 9. The injuries No. 3 to 5 were found to be simple in nature, therefore, the learned trial Court on the basis of above evidence has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellant under Section 324 of IPC. This leads me to submission with regard to reduction of sentence imposed on the appellant. The incident has occurred on 14.05.2004. The appellant was aged about 21 years when the offence was committed. The overt act appears to have been caused on account of some previous enmity. Nothing incriminating is brought to the notice of this Court that he has not reformed during pendency of this appeal. Nothing significant is on record to suggest that his freedom is detrimental to society at large. Overall facts & circumstances indicates that no harm to society at large is likely to cause in case the appellant is prematurely released. In view of the above discussion, this court is inclined to reduce the sentence imposed upon the appellant to the sentence already undergone/served 5 by the appellant by enhancing the fine amount of Rs.1,000 to Rs.10,000/- to be deposited within 90 days from today, failing which R.I. for 4 months. On depositing the fine, the injured- Mahendra Kumar (PW-1) shall be paid compensation of Rs.5,000/- in view of Section 395 of BNSS, 2023 after due identification. 10. As a consequence of the above discussion, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to sentence already served/undergone by him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond will remain in force for 6 months in view of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. The record be sent back with copy of this Judgment forthwith for necessary action and compliance. Appeal thus partly allowed as indicated above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.06.18 14:38:55 +0530