1 2025:CGHC:13953 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1089 of 2018 Shyamlal Paikra S/o Ramchandra Paikra Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Keshavpur, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate (through legal aid) For Respondent/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 22/03/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentenced dated 20.06.2018 passed by learned 1rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur District - Sarguja (C.G.), in Sessions Case No.92 of 2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC 2 and sentenced for R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 1 month. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.07.2017 at about 11:00a.m. when the victim PW-1 was going to her school, and reached near village Bishanpur at about 11:30a.m, the appellant came there and wrongfully restraint her and tried to outrage her modesty and assaulted her by a knife. He repeatedly given knife blow on her body by which she received multiple injuries. When her friend raised alarm for help the persons who were by-passing came there and intervened in the incident and took the victim to the hospital. The appellant was interested with her and shown his intimacy but she does not inclined in his intimacy for which she was being assaulted by the appellant. Dehati Nalshi Ex.P/1 was lodged by the victim PW-1 on the date of incident itself against the appellant at District Hospital, Ambikapur her statement in the form of dying declaration has been recorded on 04.07.2017 at about 01:50p.m which is Ex.P/2. The victim was medically examined by PW-4 Dr. Sarita Singh who gave her report Ex.P/5. While medically examined the victim doctor has noticed the following injuries. ● Stab injury on left side of upper interior arm 1.5x0.5X0.5cm. ● Stab injury on left posterior aspect of left forearm size 0.5X0.5X0.5 cm. ● Two stab injuries on back having size of 2x1x2cm and 2x1x2cm 3 ● Two stab injuries on her left side of chest having size of 1.5x1x2cm & 1x1x1cm. ● One cut injury found on the right palm having size of 1.5x0.5x0.5.cm. ● One cut injury on the inner aspect of thigh having size 0.5x0.5x0.5.cm. All the injuries were caused by sharp object, bleeding present and the nature of injuries is simple. 3. FIR Ex.P/18 was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Spot map Ex.P/3 was prepared by the patwari and Ex.P/9 was prepared by the police. One kurta, salwar & scarf having blood like stain have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/4. The seized cloths of the victim have been sent for it query report to the doctor, who gave query report Ex.P/6 and sent the cloths of the victim for its chemical examination for confirmation of presence of blood. Blood stains and plain soil and knife have been seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P/10. The appellant was arrested on 04.07.2017 and his full shirt has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/11. The knife seized from the spot were sent for its query report to the doctor who gave the query report Ex.P/8 and opined that the injuries found on the body of the victim could have been caused by the said knife. The blood stained and plain soil and knife seized from the spot, full shirt of the appellant and the cloths of the victim were sent for its chemical examination to regional FSL, Ambikapur from where report Ex.P/23 was received and blood was found on the sent articles except plain soil. The statement of the witnesses under 4 Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surguja place Ambikapur. 4. The case was committed to the Court of leaned Sessions Judge from where the same was transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 5. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Sections 307 of IPC. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 7. After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omission and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and their statements are inconsistent which cannot be made basis to convict the appellant in the offence in question. As per the medical report, the injuries found on the body of the victim is simple in nature that too not on the vital part of the body yet the 5 learned trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. In alternative she would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the medical evidence, the offence of the appellant, if any does not travel beyond the scope of 324 of IPC. The appellant remained in jail for more than 7 years and even the offence of Section 307 of IPC does not provide any minimum sentence and therefore considering the nature of offence and facts and circumstances of the case his undergone period may be considered to be sufficient sentence for the alleged offence. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that there are sufficient evidence against the appellant that he committed the offence with intention to commit murder of the victim. Giving the repeated blow on her body by a knife, that too on her chest clearly shows his intention to commit her murder. The motive to give assault is also clear that the victim refused the proposal of his love affair by which the appellant gave repeated blow on the body of the victim when she was going to school. The incident was witnessed by PW-8 & PW-13. He would also submit that the injuries found on the vital part of the body of the victim that is on her chest and therefore, the learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, which needs no interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. The victim PW-1 has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident when she was going to school along with her friends PW-8 6 and PW-13, on the way the appellant stopped her and gave repeated knife blow on her body by which she received injuries. Her friends had called the persons from nearby place for help. She denied the proposal of the appellant for which he gave repeated blow on her body. She was being taken to the hospital by her uncle Dashrath Yadav, where she lodged the report Ex.P/1 and her statement was aslo recorded by the Tahsildar which is Ex.P/2. In her cross- examination, the defence could not elicited any material which makes her evidence doubtful that she was not being assaulted by the appellant and someone else has assaulted her. The reason for assault has also been stated by this witness. She being the victim of the offence and duly supported her allegation, can be put in the starling quality of witness. There is no discrepancy in her report Ex.P/1 as well as in her deposition before the Court. 12. The evidence of PW-1 is supported by the evidence of her friend PW- 8, who stated in her evidence that when they were going to school, on the way the appellant assaulted the victim by knife, the victim was being stopped by the appellant and she refused his proposal. She was being assaulted by the appellant who gave repeated blow on her body. This witness has also remain firm in her cross-examination that the injuries on the body of the victim has been caused by the appellant. 13. PW-13 is another friend of the victim who initially supported the evidence that the appellant has caused injuries to the victim but in cross-examination, she deviated from her examination-in-chief and 7 makes her evidence shaky by saying that when she was returning to the place of incident, she met with PW-8 on the way and she did not know as to what happened on the place of incident. She has not seen the incident but hear about the incident. Although this witness has made the statement in her cross-examination that she did not seen but she is the witness who went from the spot to call the other persons for their help and she can be relied upon to some extent that she was also with the victim at the time of incident, when the appellant assaulted her by knife. 14. PW-5 Dasrath Yadav, who was being called by PW-13 for help has stated in his evidence that the victim is his niece and on the date of incident she had gone to her school. In the meantime her friend PW- 13 rush to him and informed that the appellant is assaulting the victim by knife and when he rush to the place of incident he found that his niece is lying on the road in injured condition thereafter, he took her to district Hospital and other companions had gone to inform the family members of the victim. Though at this stage he also has been declared hostile but he admitted that PW-13 had informed about the incident that the appellant is assaulting the victim by knife. In his cross-examination also nothing could be extracted by the defence which makes his evidence doubtful, therefore, from the evidence of these witnesses the involvement of the appellant in the offence is question is found proved that on the date of incident when the victim was going to her school the appellant caused the injures on her body. 8 15. PW-4 Dr. Sarita Singh who medically examined the victim has found the various injuries on her body including stab wound on left upper arm and left side of chest and other part of the body. The chest of a person is a vital part and causing stab injury on the chest a person can be said to be injuries caused on vital part of the body, giving the repeated blow including stab wound on chest can certainly be given an inference that the appellant was intended to cause her murder and attempted for the same. For the offence of Section 307 of IPC, only the intention coupled with some overt act to be seen which is very much available in the present case. Although the doctor has opined that the injuries are simple nature but looking to the nature of injuries and the part of body in which the repeated stab wound were inflicted by the appellant, irrespective of the nature of injuries, it can be said that the appellant has attempted to commit her murder. From the evidence available on record, I do not found sufficient reason to disagree with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court holding the appellant gulity for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and I affirm the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC. 16. In the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (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 9 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 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.” 17. The incident is occurred in the year 2017, the appellant was presently appears to be aged about 32 years. The appellant was arrested on 04.07.2017 and during trial he was remained in jail and he has been released on bail vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed by this Court, considering the length of his detention period i.e. 7 years and 4 months 4 days and thus the appellant has already served the sentence of more than 7 years and 4 months out of total sentence awarded to him i.e. 10 years. This Court is of the opinion that ends of 10 justice would met if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced for the alleged offence under the peculiar facts and circumstance of the present case. 18. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, his sentenced is reduced for the period undergone by him. The fine sentence and default stipulation awarded the learned trial Court is remain intact. 19. The appellant is reported to on bail his bail bond shall continue for the further period of six months as provided under Section 481 of B.N.S.S. 2023. 20. With the above alteration/modification of sentence awarded to the appellant, his appeal is partly allowed. 21. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Vaibhav/alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.04.03 10:08:03 +0530