1 2025:CGHC:33397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 974 of 2024 Dinesh Chopda S/o Late Shri Milap Chand Chopda Aged About 38 Years R/o Amapara Kanker, Thana - Kanker, District North Baster Kanker (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 16.07.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.05.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 39/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.17 17:15:02 +0530 2 under Sections 294 and 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 month with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 10 days and RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 15 days respectively. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, On 17/09/2022 at around 7:45 PM, complainant Kushwant Chhabra, supervisor at the Foreign Liquor Shop in Kanker, was on duty when the accused, Dinesh Chopra of Aamapara, Kanker, arrived at the shop, abused the staff, and kicked the iron gate. When the complainant stepped out to intervene, the accused threatened him, and in a fit of rage, smashed a liquor bottle, attacked the complainant with its sharp edge, and caused an injury to the left side of his neck with intent to kill. The shop employees and customers intervened and rescued the complainant. Based on a written complaint, FIR was registered at Police Station Kanker. The complainant was medically examined the same day at Government Komaldev District Hospital, Kanker. During investigation, site maps were prepared, blood-stained soil was seized, and on the basis of the accused’s memorandum, broken bottle pieces and blood-stained clothes were recovered. After recording witness statements, a charge sheet was filed U/s 294 & 307 of IPC. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against 3 which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the appellant is now aged about 41 years and has family responsibilities and he has already remained in jail for about 82 days. The incident took place in the year 2022 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of Kushwant Chhabra (PW-2), Junior Resident/Doctor Pushpendra Kumar Sahu (PW-4) and his report Ex.P-8, Rupesh Patel (PW-3), Rakesh Manjhi (PW-5), establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 294 & 324 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the sentence part, as the appellant has already served about 82 days, therefore, sentence of the Appellant of offence under Section 294 of IPC is also affirmed. So far as the sentence of the appellant of offence under Section 324 of IPC is concerned, the incident had taken place in the year 2022 i.e. about 3 years ago. At that time, the appellant was aged about 38 years and now he 4 must be aged about 41 years having family responsibility. The appellant is facing the lis since 2022, he has no criminal antecedent and he has already remained in jail for about 82 days. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellant to jail and the ends of justice would serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant of offence under Section 294 of IPC is maintained. The conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC is also maintained and the sentence of RI for 6 months is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 82 days. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham