1 2025:CGHC:4692 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2005  Manrakhan S/o Shri Parasram Dhobi, aged about 22 years, R/o Village- rateeja, Police Outpost- Deepka, P. S.- Kusmunda, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) ---- Appellant Versus  State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S.- Kusmunda, District- Korba (C.G.) ----Respondent/State _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Ms. Prakriti Deo, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 27.01.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 21.09.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) in S.T. No. 28/2005, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 324 of IPC R.I. for 02 years with fine amount of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo additional R.I. for 03 months Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL Date: 2025.01.30 17:42:40 +0530 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant- Chandrapal Yadav (PW-04) lodged a report against the appellant at Police Station- Kusumunda with the averment that on 15.10.2004, at about 9:10 pm, when he was asleep along with his family members in his home at Village- Rateeja, the accused/appellant came to his house under the influence of liquor and stated that he would sleep in his house. When the complainant (PW-04) raised objection, the accused went to his own house and thereafter, again came armed with a tangia (Axe) and threatened him to kill and his family members and when the complainant’s wife Smt. Ramkunwar Bai (PW-05) intervened between them, the appellant assaulted her with tangia (Axe) and inflicted her injury at the nape of her neck, due to which her hair also got cut. When the complainant’s wife started shouting for help, her neigbours, her mother-in-laws Smt. Shanti Bai (PW-3) and Dhirpal Yadav (PW-2) came to the spot. Thereafter the appellant fled from the spot with the arm tangia (Axe) and informed the said incident to Sunder Singh (PW-1) & B. Vaishnav and then the complainant took her injured person/wife to Police Outpost- Deepka to lodge the report. After registering the report by police of Police Outpost- Dipka as Ex. P/4. Thereafter, doctor examined the injured person who is Ramkunwar Bai (PW-05) and gave his report as Ex. P/11, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/10, Seized tangia (Axe) vide Ex. P/7 and seized articles produced by complainant i.e. Saree, Blouse of injured/ Ramkunwar Bai (PW-05) and his loin cloth (lungi) as per Ex. P/8, blood stained soil and plain soil were recovered from the spot as per Ex. P/6, thereafter spot map was prepared by 3 Patwari as per Ex. P/5, statement of the witnesses were recorded and the appellant was arrested as per Ex. P/13. Seized articles were sent for chemical examinations to FSL and its report is Ex. P/1C. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was led against the appellant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora and thereafter the matter was committed to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Korba and the appellant was put for trial for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC against the appellant. Conclusion of the trial is that the appellant has been convicted as mentioned in opening para of this judgment. 4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 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 charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false entailment in the case. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 on record and not appreciated the fact and evidence and wrongly convicted the appellant. There are vital omissions and contradictions in the statements of all the witnesses, learned Trial Court only relied upon the interested witnesses and the Seizure Memo i.e. Exs. P/6, 7 & 8, which have not been duly proved as none of the witnesses signing them have admitted the contents thereof. Accordingly, seizure of the weapon allegedly used in 4 the crime as well as that of other relevant cloths have not been duly proved beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned Trial Court gave perverse findings and thereby wrongly convicted the appellant in the said offence, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC, as imposed by the Trial Court is just and proper, the incident took place in the year 2004, this appeal is pending since 2005, the appellant is now aged more than 40 years and he is remained in jail for more than 3 months and he did not misuse the liberty 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. 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced appellant under Section 324 of IPC. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is clear from the record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges 5 against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 307 of IPC and it is also clear that prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses to prove its case against the accused person/appellant. Learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence altered the offence under Section 307 of IPC of the appellant to Section 324 of IPC and thereby convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. 9. It is vivid from evidence of complainant Chandrapal (PW-4), as he has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that on the date of the incident, the appellant came to his house under the influence of liquor, knocked on the door, and abused him, and when he raised an objection, he went from the spot. After some time, the appellant returned to the home of the complainant with his family members and again knocked on the door and at that time the appellant’s father asked the complainant what he said to the appellant, and then he answered that the appellant abused him by using filthy language, therefore he refused him. The appellant’s father caught the complainant, and his brother and mother caught the complainant’s wife- Ramkunwar Bai (PW-5) at that time, the appellant, armed with the tangia (Axe), inflicted injury on the complainant’s wife. Thereafter, the complainant took her wife to the village’s Sarpanch, where they narrated the whole incident and then lodged the report at Police Outpost Dipka. Thereafter, the complainant (PW-4) and his wife (PW-) went to the hospital for treatment. 10. Smt. Ramkunwar Bai (PW-5), who is the wife of complainant and has 6 supported the statement of her husband (complainant) and categorically stated against the appellant that on the date of incident, the appellant came to her house along with three other persons, they were slept at that time and were being woken up as we heard their filthy language towards us, her husband (complainant) refused them to not use filthy language towards them and thereby the appellant and his acquaintance went from the spot. After some time, the appellant returned to the home of the complainant with his family members and again knocked on the door of the complainant and at that time the appellant’s father enquired about the incident, whereby the complainant went to talk with him and in the meantime, the appellant came equipped with tangia (Axe), the appellant’s father held the complainant, and his brother and mother held his wife- Ramkunwar Bai (PW-5) at that time, the appellant assaulted her by tangia (Axe) on her neck due to which she sustained injury. Thereafter, she further stated that her husband (complainant) took her to the village’s Sarpanch, where they narrated the whole incident and then lodged the report at Police Outpost- Dipka. Thereafter, her husband and she went to the hospital for treatment, where the doctor examined her, and she was admitted to the hospital for about a week. However, the other independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. 11. Dr. Arun Tiwari (PW-10), who examined the complainant’s wife- Ramkunwar Bai (PW-5) on 16.10.2004 at 3:45 hours, opined that 3x1 inch incised wound on her back side, as per PW-10, nature of injury is simple in nature, gave his report vide Ex. P/11. Learned trial court, after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence of all the 7 witnesses, including the medical reports and medical evidence, rightly found that the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out against the appellant and thereby altered the Section 307 of IPC of the appellant to Section 324 of IPC and thereby rightly convicted the appellant under Section 324 of IPC., Thus, learned Trial Court 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. 12. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2004 and nearly 20 years have rolled by since then, this appeal is pending since 2005. The appellant is now aged more than 40 years; appellant has remained in jail for more than 03 months and he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail. 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 324 of IPC by the Trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 13. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 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. 14. 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 8 provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 15. 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