1 CRA No.594 of 2016 2025:CGHC:28684 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 594 of 2016 1 Irfan Aalam S/o Mohd. Safir Aalam Aged About 20 Years R/o Basra, Police Station Hajipur, District Baishali Bihar, At Present Residing At Tiwraiya, Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dharsiwa, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 27/06/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.04.2016, passed in Sessions Trial No.155/2015 by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 326 of the IPC and JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.30 10:45:48 +0530 2 CRA No.594 of 2016 sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default stipulation and Section 25 (1B) (B) of the Arms Act to undergo S.I. for 6 months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 09.06.2015, at about 10:40 pm, the applicant Mohan Lal Chandravanshi came to Dharsiwa police station and lodged a report to the effect that on 09.06.2015 at about 10 pm, he was scolding his children, at the same time the accused was passing from there and he started abusing and fighting saying that the appellant is abusing him. At that time, Ramkumar Verma and Prakash Sahu came to intervene. Thereafter, the accused left the place and after 5 minutes the accused brought an iron ‘Gandasa’ (used for cutting of tyre) from the tyre shop and started saying that he will kill the applicant and attacked him repeatedly, due to which the applicant got injured in his left hand and thumb while trying to stop the attack on his head. When the people of the locality and the applicant's wife heard about it, they came to intervene. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested and a charge-sheet was filed against him. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded 3 CRA No.594 of 2016 his innocence and false implication in the matter. 4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 07.04.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are contradictory and such statements are not reliable and admissible under the law. He further submits that there is no statement of any witness regarding assault by the present appellant with deadly weapon. Even there is no proof of record to cause voluntarily grievous hurt to the complainant. Therefore the offence under sections 25 (1B) (B) of Arms Act and 326 of IPC is not attracted in the case. He submits that the incident took place in 2015 and the appeal is pending since 2016. The appellant is aged about 30 years as on date. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed. 6. Ms. Isha Jajodia, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their 4 CRA No.594 of 2016 rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. The victim PW-4 namely Mohan Lal Chandravanshi himself stated in cross examination that he was under the influence of alcohol. He further stated that there was no prior dispute between the appellant and the victim. He also stated that the weapon by which the applicant was hurt was not blunt from both the sides. 9. Dr. Sanjeev Meshram (PW-2) has stated that he is posted as Medical Officer in Community Health Centre, Dharsiyan for the last 3 years. On 09.06.2015 at 10:55 p.m., injured Mohanlal Chandravanshi was bought for examination and on examination incised wound containing blood clots was found, the said injury was on the middle side of the left hand of the injured on the inside, whose size was 6x2x1/2 cm. Lacerated wound of size 3X1/2 cm on middle finger of left hand. Lacerated wound of size 1/2X1/2 cm on middle finger of right hand. He also stated that these injury can be caused by hard and blunt object. He further stated that first injury was of serious nature and other injuries were of normal nature. He also stated that appellant was not admitted in hospital. 10. Smt. Sulochna (PW-6) stated that though she saw the weapon in the hand of the accused but she has not seen him attacking her husband. She further stated that she do not know from where the 5 CRA No.594 of 2016 appellant brought the weapon. 11. Ramkumar Verma (PW-7) has been declared as hostile as he has not supported the version of prosecution. Likewise, PW-5 Prakash Sahu has also been declared as hostile. He has not supported the seizure. 12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the fact that the applicant was not carrying the weapon at the time of the incident; further considering the fact that all of a sudden the altercation occurred and he took the weapon from tyre shop which is situated near the house of the victim, he is acquitted of the charge under Section 25 (1B) (B) of the Arms Act. 13. So far as the offence under Section 326 IPC is concerned, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Victim, further considering the evidence adduced by the victim which is duly corroborated by the medical evidence, I am of the opinion that the trial Court did not commit any illegality in convicting the appellant under Section 326 of the IPC. However, looking to the nature of injury sustained by the appellant and also the fact that the incident is of the year 2015, the offence under section 326 IPC is converted to the offence under section 325 of the IPC. 14. So far as, the sentence part is concerned, considering the entire 6 CRA No.594 of 2016 facts and circumstance of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, the fact that the incident took place around 10 years ago, the age of the appellant at the relevant time i.e. 20 years (as on date 30 years); during pendency of this appeal the appellant was on bail since 2016; and did not misuse the liberty granted to him and keeping in view the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellant back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served, if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him and the fine amount of Rs. 5000/- imposed by the Trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- with default sentence and out of the said amount, Rs. 15000/- is directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act. However, he is convicted under section 325 of the IPC and the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine sentence of Rs. 5000/- imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-. If the appellant fails to deposit the said fine amount, he shall suffer additional R.I. for two months. The fine amount already deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted accordingly. The entire fine amount, Rs. 15,000/- shall be payable 7 CRA No.594 of 2016 to the complainant as compensation. 16. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Jyoti