1 2025:CGHC:21123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 210 of 2024 Tulsi Ekka S/o Vijay Ekka Aged About 20 Years Resident Of Village- Chiraikhar, Uraonpara, Police Station- Lailunga,, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Lailunga,, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Gorelal Uikey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 07/05/2025 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence dated 01.12.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.31 11:32:10 +0530 2 Raigarh (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 02 months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.12.2020, the cousin brother of the injured Jwakim Tete namely Suresh Kumar Tete/PW-1 lodged the FIR against the appellant that on 16.12.2020, at about 10:45 PM the injured Jwakim Tete informed him by telephone that the appellant has caused injuries to him by knife. He along with other family members took him to hospital and the injured informed him that his five hens have been killed by the appellant and electricity wire have also been disturbed and for that dispute, he assaulted him. The police have registered the FIR (exhibit P-1) for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The MLC report of the injured Jwakim Tete has been obtained from Community Health Centre, Lailunga which is exhibit P-9. The victim was being medically examined by PW-3/Dr. Lakhanlal Patel at Community Health Centre, Lailunga and gave report (exhibit P-9). While medically examining the victim, the doctor has noticed stab wound with large intestine and omentum protruded out, 3x2x7 cm in size, left iliac region of abdomen caused by sharp object and the injury was grievous in nature. The doctor has also opined that the condition of patient is worsen and primary management done in Community Health Centre, Lailunga and referred to KGH District Hospital, Raigarh for further needful management. Spot map (exhibit P-2) was prepared by the police and 3 exhibit P-3 was prepared by the Patwari. Blood stained and plain soil has been seized from the spot vide seizure memo (exhibit P-4). Half pant of the injured has been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-7). The appellant was arrested on 22.03.2021 and his memorandum statement (exhibit P-5) was recorded and based on his memorandum statement; one knife has been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P- 6). The said knife seized from the appellant was sent for its query report to the doctor, who gave his report (exhibit P-11) and opined that the object may cause stab injury and may cause of death. The blood stained and plain soil, half pant seized from the injured and knife seized from the appellant were sent for its chemical examination to Regional FSL Bilaspur, from where report (exhibit P- 14) was received and according to the FSL report, human blood was found on blood stained soil (article A), half pant of the injured (article C) and knife seized from the appellant (article D). ‘O’ group of blood was found on the knife seized from the appellant. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Sections 307 and 459 of IPC before the learned trial Court for its trial. 3. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Sections 459 and 307 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant the prosecution has examined as many as 04 witnesses. Statement of the appellant 4 under Section 313 of the CRPC has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. One defence witness Jahar Sai Bada/DW-1 has been examined by the appellant. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the offence under Section 459 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, however, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgement, hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and their evidence suffers from inconsistency and not sufficient to hold guilty of the appellant in the alleged offence. The injured received injury on his abdomen by falling on a sharpen wooden log in the poultry form in the night, but due to the suspicion, his brother lodged report against him. The incident is of night time and there is no eye witness to the incident, who seen the appellant causing injuries to the injured. The evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient for his conviction in the alleged offence. He would further submit that only one injury found on the body of the injured for which the excessive sentence of R.I. for 10 years has been awarded to the appellant. The appellant is in jail since 5 22.03.2021 and thereby he already undergone more than 04 years of his sentence. Considering the injuries found on the body of the injured, the nature of injury and other facts and circumstances of the case, the undergone period of the appellant may be considered to be sufficient sentence for the alleged offence. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are fully reliable. The victim (PW- 2) Jwakim Tete has duly identified the appellant at the time of alleged assault that he caused injuries to him by a knife. By the injury, the intestine and omentum came out from his abdomen. The doctor has opined that the injury was grievous in nature and death may have occurred. The injury was inflicted in the abdomen, which is the vital part of the body that too by a knife, which is the dangerous weapon, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the alleged offence of Section 307 of IPC and proportionally sentenced him, which needs no interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. PW-2/Jwakim Tete, is the injured in the case. He stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, at about 10:00 PM, he was sleeping in his house along with his family members. He running a 6 poultry farm in the adjoining house having 25-30 hens. In the night, he heard the noise of theft of the hens. He identified the thief that he is the appellant and then he assaulted him by knife, by which his omentum came out from his body. He informed his cousin brother through telephone and then he took him to the hospital. When the leading question was being asked from him, he stated that he disclosed in his police statement that he chased the thief and caught him in the field and then he identified him, then the appellant assaulted him by knife and he fled away. In cross-examination, he reiterated that he identified the appellant in the light of mobile torch. Nothing specific has been asked from this witness, so that his evidence can be disbelieved. He being the injured witness, duly identified the appellant as assailant, when he committed theft of hens of the injured. From the evidence of injured/PW-2, the involvement of the appellant has duly been proved by the prosecution. 10. PW-1/Suresh Kumar Tete who lodged the FIR (exhibit P-1) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, at about 10:00- 11:00 in the night, the injured informed him by telephone that that the appellant entered into his house and assaulted him by knife and fled away. He is lying in the field of Balram uncle. He asked his sister to take him to Lailunga Hospital and when he too has reached to the hospital, he saw the injuries on his abdomen. On the next day, he lodged the report. When the leading question has been asked, he stated that the injured informed him that the appellant killed his 05 hens and also disturbed his electricity connection and when he 7 objected, the appellant assaulted him by knife. He also proved the memorandum statement of the appellant (exhibit P-5). In cross- examination, he stated that he did not remember as to from which mobile number, he made a telephonic call to his sister. He denied that he did not know the incident. 11. PW-3/Dr. Lakhanlal Patel, who medically examined the injured, has stated in his evidence that on 17.12.2020, at about 12:46 Hrs. the injures was brought before him. He found stab injury on his abdomen and large intestine and omentum coming out from the injury. The injury was grievous in nature and he gave his MLC report (exhibit P- 9). In cross-examination, he admitted that the injury found on the body of the injured, could have also been caused by falling on a pointed object. 12. PW-4/B.S. Paikra has proved the investigation done in the case. He also proved the memorandum statement of the appellant (exhibit P- 5) and seizure of knife from the appellant (exhibit P-6). He also proved the FSL report (exhibit P-14), in which the ‘O’ group of human blood was found on the knife seized from the appellant. 13. From the entire evidence led by the prosecution, it has unerringly proved that on the date of incident, the appellant caused injury to the injured Jwakim Tete/PW-2 on his abdomen by knife, by which his large intestine and omentum coming out from his body, which was grievous in nature and death may be possible. The weapon of offence has been seized from the appellant, in which ‘O’ group of 8 human blood was found, for which there is no explanation in his 313 CRPC statement. Although the appellant has taken a defence that in the night, the appellant fell in the pointed wooden log, by which he received injury on his abdomen, but there is no suggestion given to the injured/PW-2 in his cross-examination that he received injury on his body by falling on the pointed wooden log and therefore, the defence taken by the appellant does not support him and the evidence of DW-1/Jahar Sai Bada is also not supported him. 14. In the matter of “Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand” 2004 (12) SCC 220, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 11 and 14 has held that:- “11. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature, extent or character of the injury or whether such injury is sufficient to actually causing death are really factors which are wholly irrelevant for adjudging the culpability under Section 307 IPC. The Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge 9 under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. 14. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstance that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury.” 15. Further, in the matter of “Ghulam Mustafa v. State of Uttaranchal (now Uttrakhand)” 2016 (15) SCC 752, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 8 of its judgment has held that:- “8. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC the Court has to see whether the act was done with the intention to commit murder and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Although the nature of injuries caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of weapons used, parts of the body where the injuries were caused, severity of the blows given and motive, etc.” 16. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused injury to the injured by knife and the ingredients of Section 10 307 of IPC has been satisfied and he has rightly been convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and this Court hereby affirmed the conviction of the appellant for that offence. 17. So far as the sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, in the matter of “Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh” (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in Para 9 as follows: "9. Western jurisprudes and sociologists. from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samuel Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817: "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested: 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Center, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education'. If it is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration. that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by reculturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and the goal is 11 salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore, consider a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts. since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw: 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield: "If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences." 18. The appellant appears to be presently aged about 20 years and is a young boy. The offence is of the year 2020 and the appellant has already undergone his sentence for more than 04 years, there is no criminal antecedent reported in the case, the manner in which the alleged incident is occurred, there is no repeated blow, the nature of injury and that the offence of Section 307 of IPC does not provide any minimum sentence, would drag this Court to reduce the 12 sentence awarded to the appellant for the alleged offence. Therefore, while maintaining his conviction for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, his sentence is reduced for R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 02 months. 19. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 22.03.2021. He is entitled for set-off of his undergone period during the trial as well as during the appeal. 20. With the aforesaid alteration/modification, the present appeal is partly allowed. 21. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 22. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved