1 / 7 2025:CGHC:7383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1052 of 2024 1 - Raju Patle S/o Dukhiram @ Sukhiram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Anantpur, P.S. Fasterpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Fasterpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate For State : Mr. G.L. Uikey, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 10/02/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment dated 04/06/2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli, C.G. in S.T. No.53/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.03.05 15:41:54 +0530 2 / 7 Conviction Sentence Under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 R.I. for Seven Years and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine One Year additional R.I. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant Dilip Jangde (PW10) lodged a report to the effect that on 09-08-2022 at about 2.30 am, his daughter-in-law Anita Jangde, who lives separately, knocked the door of the house and called out that the accused Raju Patle has come. Then he got up and saw that the accused Raju Patle was standing outside his house with a stick in his hand. When asked why he had come home so late at night, Raju Patle told that your son Devendra had entered the house to have an illicit relationship with his daughter, noticing the same, he beaten Devendra and his daughter with a stick. After that he went on the motorcycle with his son Raghavendra, he saw his son Devendra was lying. On asking him about the incident, he said that the accused Raju Patel had hit him with a stick. Due to the said assault, his son Devendra Jangde had sustained severe injury on his right head and brain due to which blood clot had formed and injury marks were visible on the finger of the right hand, back, leg, thigh of both legs. He was taken home on the motorcycle, from where he was taken to Mungeli Hospital in Makhan Jangde's Metador for treatment, thereafter after initial treatment he was referred to CIMS Hospital Bilaspur. The deceased Devendra Jangde died during treatment there. First Information Report (Ex. 19) was registered on the above report of the complainant. 3 / 7 4. During the investigation, memorandum statement of accused Raju Patle was recorded, on the basis of which one piece of bamboo stick, one bamboo rod, one piece of Oppo company mobile was seized from accused Raju Patle and seizure sheet was prepared and the piece of flooring cement stained with blood and a piece of plain flooring were seized as per seizure sheet Ex.P/12. The clothes worn by the deceased were seized from Dilip Jangde and a seizure memo (Ex.P/9) was prepared. After PM, the viscera of the dead body in four sealed boxes of the deceased was seized from constable Amarnath Netam and a seizure memo (Ex.P/27) was prepared. 5. The appellant abjured his guilt during trial and claimed to be tried. The prosecution on its behalf examined as many as 19 witnesses. The learned trial Court after evaluating the facts & evidence convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there is no direct evidence against the present appellant to connect him with crime and the conviction is solely based on the extrajudicial confession made before the witnesses namely Dilip Jangde (PW-10) (father of the deceased); Rukhmani Jangde (PW-11) (Mother of the deceased); Anita Jangde (PW- 12) and Raghvendra Jangde (PW-14) and they all are close relatives of the deceased and there is previous enmity between both the family. He would next contend that the memorandum and seizure witnesses Harvendra Kumar (PW-6) and Dilip Jangde (PW-7) have not supported the case of the prosecution. He would next contend that both the doctors 4 / 7 have given different statement with regard to injuries sustained by the deceased. He would lastly contend that the order of the trial Court requires interference by this Court and the appellant may be acquitted of the charges and he may be released on bail. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the order of the Court below is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the evidence with utmost circumspection. 9. Dr. S.P. Baghel in this case has been examined as PW-8 who gave primary treatment to the deceased and he has stated that he had examined the deceased and found the following injuries:- • A lacerated wound was found on the right fourth inter digital space (between little finger and ring finger) measuring 2 x 1 x half cm. • A black spot measuring 3 x 3 cm was found on the right side of the back and a black spot measuring 3 x 2 cm was found on the left side. Along with this, many more spots (black marks of injury) were found. • A lump was found on the right thigh, the size of which was 2 x 2.5 cm and on the left thigh it was found to be 2 x 3 cm. • Swelling was found on the eyelid below the right eye and it was reported that there was severe abdominal pain. He further stated that since the deceased was brought for primary treatment and during treatment his entire tests could not be done, therefore, he cannot state that whether the injuries were serious in nature 5 / 7 or not and looking to the bodily condition of the deceased he referred him to the CIMS Bilaspur. 10. Dr. Rahul Agrawal (PW-13), who conducted the postmortem of the deceased stated that the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased;- • There was a scratch on the outer part of the right eye of the deceased, the size of which was 2 x 1 cm. • A blue torn mark between the index and ring fingers of the right hand, the size of which was 3 x 1 cm. • Swelling was visible on both the palms and wrists, which had blood clotting on opening, • a blue torn wound on the left parietal part of the head, the size of which was 4 x 1 cm., which had blood clotting on opening, • a wound on the right side of the head with a blue coloured tear, the size of which was 4 x 1 cm., which had blood clotting on opening • A blood clot measuring 4 x 2 cm on the inner side of the parietal region and 3 x 2 cm on the inner side of the right frontal region was found. 6 / 7 • On opening the brain, subdural hemorrhage and sub haraccnoid hemorrhage were found on the right frontal region and the left parietal region. 11. This witness further stated that on being internal examination of the deceased found that there are red and blue coloured trackon track (like railway tracks) indigo marks on the back of the right shoulder measuring 6 x 1.6 cm; the mark on the back of the right arm as mentioned above measuring 4 x 1.5 cm; the mark on the back of the left shoulder measuring 5 x 1.6 cm; the mark on the back of the left arm measuring 3 x 1.5 cm; the mark on the left lumbar region measuring 4 x 1.5 cm; three wounds on the back of the right thigh measuring 3 x 1.4 cm, 2 x 1.2 cm and 2.5 x 1.3 cm. Two wounds on the back of the left thigh measuring 4 x 1.5 cm and 3 x 1.4 cm, and a mark on the back of the left leg measuring 2 x 1.3 cm. There is a blue mark of 5 x 4 cm size on the left leg behind the knee and 6 x 3 cm blue mark on the right leg behind the knee. There is a blue mark of 6 x 5 cm size on the left hip. He has stated that all the above injuries found on the body of the deceased were before his death and were caused by a heavy and blunt object. 12. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the injured and the gravity of offence, finding of conviction recorded by Trial Court is in accordance with the evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the records. Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, in my considered view, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. I do not find 7 / 7 any infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court. Thus, conviction of appellant is affirmed. 13. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the fact that incident in question took place as back as in the year 2022 and now almost more than 2 & ½ years have passed. During these years, appellant must have suffered tremendous mental trauma and anguish of trial, he has already undergone 2 & ½ years of substantive sentence imposed by trial Court, he has no any previous criminal incident, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant (RI for 07 years) appears to be on higher side. So keeping in view all the circumstances, mentioned above, ends of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon appellant is reduced from RI 07 years to RI 04 years. 14. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellant under Sections 304 of IPC, the sentence imposed upon him by trial Court under the aforesaid sections is reduced from RI for 07 years to RI 04 years. However, sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court is hereby maintained. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu