1 2025:CGHC:32595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 58 of 2008 Onkar Singh @ Pappu Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Ranjit Singh, resident of Sinchayee (Irrigation) Colony, Janjgir, PS Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of C.G. Through P.S. Janjgir, Distt.-Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Virendra Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 14-07-2025 Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.12.2007 2 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, in ST No. 150/2016 whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years, pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for six months. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 7.7.2005 at night constable Ramprasad Baghel, constable Nankidau and sainik Khagendra along with Assistant Sub Inspector Harprasad Pandey, were going towards Lachhanpur Chowk for conducting raid to seize illicit liquor. However, when they reached at canal bridge ahead of Khokhsa Barrier, the accused/appellant was standing there on the road and abusing filthily, which was objected by them. Then the appellant started quarelling with the complainant Ramprasad. He bit his right hand little finger and also bit below the right knee. The injured complainant was got medically examined and his finger was amputated through surgery. During investigation, spot map was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded and after usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 326 & 333 of IPC. Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 333 of IPC against the appellant which was abjured by him and he prayed for trial. 03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 08 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances 3 appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In his defence, he examined one witness. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence of DW-1 Sunita who has stated that the complainant party with intention to outrage her modesty were pulling her saree and the appellant objected to it and that there was fight between them. As such, the possibility of false implication of the appellant in the crime in question cannot be ruled out. The findings of learned trial court being based upon mis- appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record are liable to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges. Alternatively, it is submitted that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence u/s 326 of IPC, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the appellant at present i.e. 50 years, the fact that he is facing trial since 2006; he was on bail during trial and pendency of this appeal and 4 didn’t misuse the liberty; he remained in jail for 6 days; his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that in view of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Section 333 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him under under Section 326 of IPC. 09. PW-5 Ramprasad Baghel, injured complainant, states that on the date of incident, he along with crime squad in-charge Shri Harprasad Pandey and staff was out for conducting raid on illicit liquor. On the way, the appellant was found filthily abusing. When it was objected, he started abusing the police personnel and during scuffle, bit off his right hand little finger as also bit below his right knee. 10. PW-1 Nanki Dau Rathore, one of the members of the raiding party and PW-4 Harprasad Pandey (ASI), are eyewitnesses to the 5 incident and supported the statement of the complainant that it is the accused/appellant who bit off right hand little finger as also bit the knee of the complainant. 11. PW-2 Dr. Arvind Dwivedi examined injured Ramprasad on 8.7.2005 and found following injuries: 1. Traumatic amputation of right little finger at middle phalanx. Lacerated wound at middle of middle phalanx exposing soft tissues and bone. 2. Abrasion, 2 cm x 1 cm on anterior part of U/3 of right left, fresh red blood clot present. In his opinion, injury No.1 is grievous in nature, caused by hard and blunt object and injury No.2 is non-grievous in nature, caused by hard and blunt object within 3-6 hours. He advised for x-ray of right little finger. His report is Ex.P/1 which bears his signature from A to A part. 12. PW-3 Dr. Santosh Modi states that injured Ramprasad was admitted in hospital from 8.7.2005 to 27.8.2005; he treated him during this period and gave prescriptions Ex.P/6, P/7 & P/8. He states that right hand little finger of the injured got cut off which was operated upon by him. The defence could not elicit anything from the aforesaid witnesses to make their evidence untrustworthy or doubtful. 6 13. In view of the aforesaid unrebutted evidence of the injured complainant PW-5 Ramprasad, which finds due corroboration from the evidence of PW-1 Nanki Dau Rathore, PW-4 Harprasad Pandey as also the medical evidence of PW-2 Dr. Arvind Dwivedi and PW-3 Dr. Santosh Modi, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused/appellant who bit off the right hand little finger of the complainant, he remained hospitalized from 8.7.2005 to 27.8.2005 and thus caused him grievous injury. Thus, conviction of the appellant recorded by learned trial court under Section 326 of IPC being based upon proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, is hereby affirmed. 14. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the incident took place in the year 2005, the appellant is facing trial since 2006 and this appeal is pending since 2008; at present the appellant is aged about 50 years; he did not use any weapon for making assault; 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 six days, 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 to the period already undergone by him while keeping the fine imposed on him by trial Court with default sentence intact. 7 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of IPC, the substantive jail sentence thereunder is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed on him by learned trial Court with default stipulation shall remain intact. 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 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: 2025.07.16 11:28:09 +0530