1 2025:CGHC:6915 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 604 of 2020 Karmu Turi S/o Jagdish Turi Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Badosar Ganeshpur, Post Tengaria, P.S. Palkot District Gumla (Jharkhand), ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mohan Nagar Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Nitesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Atnu Ghosh, Dy. G.A.. for the State. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 06/02/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentenced dated 31.10.2019 passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Case No.127 of 2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 397 of IPC and Sentenced for R.I. for 7 years. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.03.07 19:43:12 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.06.2018 the complainant PW-1 Mohd. Latif has lodged a report to the police with the effect that at about 2:30 pm when he and his cousin brother Junaid Khokhar were returning to their houses after closing of vegetable market, Junaid Khokhar was just ahead of him in another motorcycle and he followed him, near FCI godown the appellant who was standing on the road having iron pipe in his hand, assaulted on the head of his brother Junaid Khokhar by which he fell down on the ground and thereafter the appellant looted the cash amount from the pocket of his brother Junaid and started running from there. He caught the appellant on the spot with the help of other persons who were gathered there. The appellant disclosed his name as Karmu Turi, resident of Jharkhand. His brother was received injuries on his head and he was taken to the hospital. On the report made by the complainant the FIR Ex.P/1 was registered for the offence under Section 394 of IPC against the appellant. The victim was sent for his medical examination to Government hospital, Durg, where Ruchi Ganveer has medically examined him and gave report Ex.P/4. While examining the victim, the following injuries have been found on his body. ● Lacerated wound of left parieto occipital region 4x2x1cm ● Abrasion on right elbow 7x3c.m. ● Abrasion on right Zygomatic area ● multiple abrasions of left upper limb ● Abrasion of left foot, left knee 5x3cm 3 3. The victim was admitted in causality ward for treatment. Since appellant was caught on the spot itself, he was taken into custody and his memorandum statement Ex.P/7 was recorded and cash of Rs.11470/- and iron pipe have been seized from him vide seizure memo Ex.P/9. The motorcycle has also been seized from the complainant vide seizure memo Ex. P/8. The victim was admitted at B.Y. Hospital from 20.06.2018 from 22.06.2018. The iron pipe seized from the appellant was sent for its query report to doctor and obtained query report Ex.P/14. Doctor has opined in query report that the injuries found on the body of the victim could have been caused by the said iron pipe 4. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded. Spot map Ex.P/2 was prepared by the police and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 394 and 397 of IPC before the learned Chief Judaical Magistrate, Durg. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Durg, from where the same has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 5. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Sections 394 & 397 of I.P.C. The appellant denied his guilt and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 4 7. After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 397 of IPC instead of Section 394 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omission and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which can not be made basis to hold conviction of the appellant in the alleged offence. The victim has received injuries by falling on the road by his motorcycle but the appellant has falsely implicated in the offence he would further submit that it was busy road and it was not possible for the appellant to commit any offence. When the appellant is said to have been caught hold on the spot itself, recording of his memorandum statement and based on it seizure of cash amount itself is doubtful, therefore, there is no sufficient evidence against the appellant to convict him for the alleged offence and he is entitled for acquittal. 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was caught hold on the spot along with looted cash amount as well as the weapon of the offence by which the assault made by the appellant. The victim has received head injuries which has been proved by the doctor. Since the appellant was caught hold on the spot itself, there is no question of his identity and his involvement is duly proved by the prosecution witnesses. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellant after appreciating the entire 5 evidence available on record and there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court. The appeal filed by the appellant does not have any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. PW-2 who is the victim in the case have stated in his evidence that on 20.06.2018 when he along with his cousin brother were returning from the market and at about 2:30pm when they reached near FCI godown, the appellant who was standing on the road having iron pipe in his hand assaulted him which inflicted on his head and he fell down from his motorcycle. The appellant came to him and looted cash amount which he was kept in his pocket . He lost his consciousness and could regain his conscious at Durg hospital. At the time of incident he was having about Rs.11470-80/- cash which was looted by the appellant. In cross-examination he remain firm and the defence could not elicited any material so that it can hold that it is not the appellant but some other persons have assaulted the victim or he received injuries in the accident. However, in cross-examination a suggestion was given by the defence which has been admitted by the victim that when he was coming on the road the appellant have assaulted on his head all of sudden. By this part of suggestion and admission of the appellant makes him liable to hold that he assaulted the victim on the alleged date and time of the incident and looted his cash amount which was kept by him in his pocket. 12. PW-1 Mohd. Latif is the person who was coming along with the victim. Though he was in another motorcycle but he was just behind of the 6 victim. He stated in his evidence that at about 2:30pm on the date incident when they were returning by their motorcycle, near FCI godown the appellant who was standing on road having iron pipe in his hand gave him blow on the head of the victim, he tried to save himself but could not succeed and fell down on the ground. By the assault made by the appellant, the victim received head injury. At the same moment the appellant went to the victim and looted the cash amount from his pocket. When he was about to flee from the place, he caught by him and his brother Mohd. Javed. They called 108 ambulance and send the victim to the hospital. He lodged the report to the police station, Mohan Nagar Durg. In his cross-examination he stated that he saw the appellant on the distance of about 500 meter and he was not expected that the appellant may assault the victim. He remain firm in saying that on the place of incident the appellant was caught by the persons who were present there. He witnessed that the appellant taken out the amount from the pocket of the victim. But for minor omission or contradictions which was trivial in nature this witness remain firm in the act of the appellant that he assaulted the victim and looted the cash amount from his pocket. 13. PW-3 Mohd. Javed is also supported the prosecution’s case and stated in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 2-3 p.m. when he was going to his house after closing of his shop, near FCI godown, he saw the incident and then the persons of vicinity caught hold the appellant and taken him to Mohan Nagar Police station. He too have supported the fact that on the place of incident the appellant was caught by the persons who gathered there. 7 14. PW-11 Dr. A.K. Ganveer, proved the medical report Ex.P/4 of the victim. He stated in his evidence that he came to prove document Ex.P/4 which has been prepared by Dr. Ruchi Ganveer. He further stated that on 20.06.2018 the victim was medically examined by Dr. Ruchi Ganveer and found certain injuries on his body and she admitted him in the casualty ward. She also gave query report Ex.P/14 in which Dr. Ruchi Ganveer has opined that the injuries found on body of the victim could have been caused by the iron pipe seized from the appellant. Nothing could be elicited from the evidence of this witness to prove that the victim has not received any injuries on his head. 15. PW-5 Tikaram Thakur, PW-6 Bihari Lal, PW-8 Nilkusum Badwariya are the police persons who conduced the part of the investigation and prove the same in the manner which they have conducted during the investigation. From the evidence available on record the involvement of the appellant in the offence in question have been duly found proved as he was caught hold of the spot and the looted cash amount of Rs.11470/- has been seized from him. The incident was witnessed by PW-1 and the victim PW-2 is the sufferer of the offence committed by the appellant. 16. Therefore, this Court of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence available on record and have convicted him for the offence under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced him. Therefore I do not found any ground to interfere with the conviction of the appellant and sentenced awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 17. In the result the appeal fails and hereby dismissed. 8 18. It is reported that the appellant has been released from jail after obtaining the benefit of special reprieve and has been released on 15.08.2023, therefore, the appellant need not surrender before the trial Court. 19. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Vaibhav