1 2025:CGHC:21331 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 149 of 2014 Hinsha Ram Baghel S/o . Manna Lal Gabhel aged about 32 years R/o. Dhangaon, P.S. Dondilohara, Tah. Civil and Rev. Distt. Balod (C.G.) --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Dondilohara, Distt. Balod (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No. 14 of 2014 1 - Vijay Baghel and Ors S/o Mannu Lal Baghel aged about 29 years, R/o Dhangaon, P.S. Dondilohara, Tah., Civil and Rev. Distt. Balod (C.G.) 2 - Mannu Lal Baghel S/o Halalkhor Baghel aged about 43 years, R/o Dhangaon, P.S. Dondilohara, Tah., Civil and Rev. Distt. Balod (C.G.) 3 - Anita Baghel W/o Hinsha Ram Baghel aged about 28 years, R/o Dhangaon, P.S. Dondilohara, Tah., Civil and Rev. Distt. Balod (C.G.) 4 - Goukaran Barge S/o Manna Lal Barege aged about 28 years, R/o Dhangaon, P.S. Dondilohara, Tah., Civil and Rev. Distt. Balod (C.G.) ---Appellants Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Dondilohara, Distt. Balod (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, along with Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For State : Mr. Devesh K. Gela, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 08.05.2025 1. As both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.12.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balod (C.G.), District-Balod (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 12/2013, they are heard analogously and being disposed of by this common judgment. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code R.I. for 1 year and fine amount of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional S.I. for 30 days. Under Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC R.I. for 07 years, with fine amount of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional S.I. for 60 days. (All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.) 2. Brief facts of the case as adumbrated by the appellants is the allegation levelled against the present appellants is that they caused injury with the help of club (lathi) on 22.02.2013 to injured Virendra 3 Kumar and due to the said incident injured Virendra Kumar was admitted in the government hospital, Dondilohara by the Police of Police Station- Dondilohara and thereafter his mother Kumari Barge and his father Uday Lal Barge have narrated the incident and matter was reported by his mother, thereafter the FIR was lodged against the appellants for offence under Section 307 of IPC. After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Magistrate concerned. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the appellants. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges leveled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. In their defence, the appellants did not adduce any witness. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.12.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in introductory para of this judgment. Hence, the present appeals filed by the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment dated 26.12.2013 is perverse, erroneous, contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. It is clear from statement of injured that only Hinsha Ram has 4 caused injury to him on his nose and head and at that time, the other appellants were only present there, after being assaulted by Hinsha Ram, the injured has become unconscious, so Hinsha Ram did not state against the other co-accused persons/appellants and he himself admitted this fact that at that time appellants in CRA No. 14/2014 were only present on the place of incident, but the learned trial Court convicted all the other co-accused persons/appellants with the present appellant Hinsha Ram. It is also clear from statement of injured Virendra Kumar that there was previous subsisting enmity between him and the present appellant Hinsha Ram, because of this reason, the younger brother namely Narendra has caused murder to the father of the co-accused/present appellant Hinsha Ram. He further contends that injuries caused by the co-accused/present appellant Hinsha Ram is simple in nature and all the injuries are lacerated wound and there is no fracture found anywhere on the body of the injured and therefore, looking to the injuries Section 320 of IPC could not be attracted, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate oral and documentary evidence and also not appreciated medical evidence and thereby convicted and sentenced the appellants, thus findings recorded by learned trial Court are not sustainable, so appellants No. 1 to 4 in CRA No. 14/2014 deserve to be acquitted of all the charges and as regards sentence of the appellant/Hinsha Ram in CRA No. 149/2014, he undergone more than 3 years. He further submits that the incident took place in the year 2013 and at that time, the appellant/Hinsha Ram was aged about 32 years, and this appeal is pending since 2014 and now the appellant is a middle aged person, therefore, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 5 6. Per contra, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. So, learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellants. Hence, these appeals are without any merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 8. It is clear from record of learned trial Court that it framed charges against the appellants for offence punishable under Sections 148, 307 in alternate Section 307/149 of IPC. After hearing both the parties, and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, learned trial Court convicted the accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 148 and 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 9. Virendra Kumar (PW-1), who was injured person in his examination-in- chief stated that he was coming from his bicycle, at that time near Village-Andi, the appellant/Hinsaha Ram assaulted him by club (lathi) on his nose and head and other accused persons were also standing there, Due to the injuries sustained by Virendra Kumar (PW-1), became unconscious on the spot and then he lodged the report against the appellants. Tahsildar recorded his dying declaration as Ex. P/1. 10. Kunwari Bai (PW-2) and Uday Lal (PW-7) have stated that in their deposition that the injured Virendra Kumarn apprised them that he sustained injuries which were caused by the assault of the 6 appellant/Hinsha Ram. 11. Dr. S. L. Uika (PW-3), who examined the injured Virendra Kumar and found injuries on his head and nose and then he gave his report vide Ex. P/7. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and also found that Hinsha Ram assaulted the injured Virendra Kumar, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact though the injured himself stated that only Hinsha Ram assaulted him and other co-accused persons were only standing there and he also admitted that there was previous subsisting enmity between the injured and the appellant/Hinsha Ram. Virendra Kumar (PW-1) did not state anywhere that other accused persons/appellants in any manner supported Hinsha Ram for assaulting him or in any manner constituted unlawful assembly and committed riots. 12. For the sake of convenience, Section 148 of IPC is herein mentioned as under:- Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with rioting while armed with a deadly weapon or an instrument capable of causing death when used as a weapon. The punishment for this offense can include imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both. 13. It is clear that injured Virendar Kumar (PW-1) has only stated against the appellant/Hinsha Ram and the learned trial Court did not appreciate statement of injured properly, so conviction of the appellant/Hinsha Ram under Section 307 of IPC is hereby maintained , however, the conviction under Section 148 of IPC against Hinsa Ram and other co-accused persons and Section 307 of IPC against 7 the co-accused persons are not according to facts and circumstances of the case, so the appellants in CRA No. 14/2014 are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them and appeal is allowed. 14. Appellant/ Hinsa Ram in CRA No. 149/2014 is acquitted of the charge under Section 148 of IPC, but his conviction under Section 307 of IPC is hereby affirmed. As regards his sentence part, he undergone more than 3 years, the incident took place in the year 2013, at that time, the appellant/Hinsha Ram was aged about 32 years and this appeal is pending since 2014 and now the appellant is a middle aged person, therefore, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 15. In the result, the CRA No. 149/2014 is allowed and CRA No. 14/2014 is partly allowed. 16. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023. 17. 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/Uttej