1 2025:CGHC:31633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 201 of 2008 Mahesh Kumar S/o Dhaniram Sahu, Aged about 18 years, R/o Near Tulsipur Railway Crossing, Rajnandgaon, PS City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, City Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 09/07/2025 The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.1.2008 passed by Special Judge, Rajnandgaon in Special Case No.47/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 03 months, 2 Under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 03 months. Under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 07 years, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to suffer additional SI for 03 months. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 1.2.2007 at around 9.30 pm when complainant Sujeet Bansod was going back to his house, brother of the accused/appellant namely Pinku met him on the way at Sangam Chowk and demanded money for consuming liquor. When the complainant refused, Pinku gave a knife blow on his stomach while accused/appellant Mahesh was holding the complainant. Accused Pinku also abused the complainant filthily and threatened him of life. At that time, the complainant was accompanied by Rajesh Marar. On the same day, FIR was registered against the appellant and his brother Pinku under Sections 294, 324, 506, 307, 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 {in short “SC/ST Act”}. During investigation, caste certificate of the complainant was seized. The complainant as also Rajesh Marar were got medically examined. Bloodstained clothes of the complainant were seized. On the memorandum of accused Pinku, weapon of offence knife was seized and he being minor, charge sheet was filed against him before the Children Court whereas charge sheet under Sections 294, 324, 506, 307, 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was filed against the accused/appellant before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. 03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 307 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act against accused/appellant which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. 3 04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 09 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In his defence, he examined two witnesses. 05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 06. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. There is major contradiction in the statement of the complainant Sujeet Bansor (PW-1) regarding assault on his body. In the FIR and case diary statement, he stated that assault was made by accused Pinku Sahu as the complainant refused to fulfill his illegal demand of money for consuming liquor whereas in the court he stated that assault was made by appellant Mahesh Sahu. Therefore, the complainant is not a reliable witness in this case. As per evidence of the defence witnesses, in fact the complainant Sujeet along with others assaulted the appellant and his brothers and during scuffle, the knife accidentally hit Sujeet. However, the learned trial Court did not consider this aspect of the matter. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the complainant admitted in his deposition that many criminal cases are pending against him and his brother is facing trial in a case of theft. She further submits that even otherwise, looking to the nature of injury and the manner in which the incident took place, no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the appellant and at the most, he can be held guilty under Section 324 of IPC. 4 Further, looking to the fact that the incident took place in the year 2007, the appeal is pending since 2008; the appellant was on bail during trial as also during pendency of this appeal; he did not misuse the liberty; remained in jail for more than a year; after conversion of the offence under Section 307 of IPC into 324 of IPC, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 09. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that appellant was charged under Section 294, 307 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 10. PW-1 Sujeet Basod, complainant/victim, states that on 1.2.2007 while he was going to betel shop, on the way the accused/appellant met and demanded money from him for consuming liquor. At that time, accused Pinku Sahu was with the appellant. He states that on his refusal, the appellant abused him filthily and gave a knife blow on his stomach 5 11. PW-4 Leelendra Jain and PW-5 Rajesh state that it is the accused/appellant who assaulted Sujeet with knife on his stomach and when Rajesh tried to intervene, he too sustained injury. 12. PW-7 Dr. VP Maheshwar examined injured Sujeet Bansod on 1.2.2007 and found one stab wound of size 2 x ½ cm x cavity deep on the upper part of the stomach. In his opinion, that injury was caused by a sharp object within 24 hours. He also advised for x-ray of the victim. His report is Ex.P/5 on which he admitted his signature from A to A part. He also examined injured Rajesh and found three abrasions on his neck below thyroid bone and one linear abrasion of 4 cm and one linear abrasion below left thumb. All these injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object within 24 hours. His report is Ex.P/6 which bears his signature from A to A part. He also examined the weapon of offence knife and opined that the injury suffered by Sujeet Bansod could be caused by this weapon vide his report Ex.P/7. 13. The prosecution did not examine any expert doctor or produced any report of further treatment of injured Sujeet Bansod to prove the nature of injuries. 14. Considering the evidence of the complainant PW-1 Sujeet Bansod, PW-4 Leelendra Jain, PW-5 Rajesh (injured) coupled with the evidence of PW-7 Dr VP Maheshwar and the documentary evidence on record, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused/appellant who abused the complainant filthily at a public place, assaulted him with knife and caused him stab wound. It also stands proved that the appellant caused simple injuries to PW-5 Rajesh too. Thus, his conviction under Section 294 and 323/34 of IPC recorded by learned trial Court being based upon proper 6 appreciation of oral and documentary evidence cannot be faulted with and is hereby affirmed. However, looking to the manner in which the incident took place, the nature of injuries suffered by complainant Sujeet Bansod and the evidence of the treating doctor; this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the offence u/s 307/34 of IPC against the appellant and in the given facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, he can be, at best, held guilty under Section 324/34 of IPC. 15. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the incident took place in the year 2007, at the time of incident the appellant was 18 years of age; he was on bail during trial as also during pendency of this appeal and never misused the liberty granted to him; he has remained in jail for more than 1 year (about 14 months), this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail at this stage and ends of justice would be met if he is sentenced under Section 324/34 of IPC to the period already undergone by him. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 294 and 323/34 of IPC, his conviction under Section 307/34 of IPC is altered to Section 324/34 of IPC and he is awarded jail sentence thereunder to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, in view of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023, he shall furnish a bail bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court to ensure his appearance before the higher Court as 7 and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal being filed against this judgment, and this bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.07.11 16:52:31 +0530