1 2025:CGHC:1543 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 287 of 2013 1. Resham Lal Sahu S/o Kanshiram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Raikona , P.S. Sarsiva, Distt. Raipur Now District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara Chhattisgarh. 2. Sundar Lal Sahu S/o Kanshiram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Raikona , P.S. Sarsiva, Distt. Raipur Now District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara Chhattisgarh. 3. Rajendra S/o Sundar Lal Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Raikona , P.S. Sarsiva, Distt. Raipur Now District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara Chhattisgarh. 4. Kanshiram Sahu S/o Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Village - Raikona , P.S. Sarsiva, Distt. Raipur Now District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara Chhattisgarh. Chhattisgarh 5. Smt. Morga Bai W/o Sundar Lal Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Raikona , P.S. Sarsiva, Distt. Raipur Now District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara Chhattisgarh. 6. Dokari Bai W/o Resham Lal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Raikona , P.S. Sarsiva, Distt. Raipur Now District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through – SH.O. Sarsiva , Distt. Raipur, Now Baloda Bazar – Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.01.10 18:09:57 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 09 / 01 /202 5 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.03.2013 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Baloda Bazar, District – Raipur (Now Balodabazar-Bhatapara) (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 20/2011 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: Name of the Accused Conviction Sentence Kanshiram Sahu (A-4), Smt. Mogra Bai (A-5) and Dokari Bai (A- 6) U/s 147 of IPC R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 2 months. Resham Lal Sahu (A-1), Sundar Lal Sahu (A-2) and Rajendra (A-3) U/s 148 of IPC R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 3 months. All the appellants (A- 1, A-2, A-3, A- 4, A-5 and A- 6) U/s 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC (Thrice) R.I. for 7 years (Thrice) with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 4 months. All the appellants (A- 1, A-2, A-3, A- U/s 506 Part-II of IPC R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine amount 3 4, A-5 and A- 6) additional R.I. for 2 months. 2. It is alleged that on the date of the offence i.e. 11.06.2010 at about 10:00 am in village Riakona, the appellants were an unlawful assembly, assaulted and used filthy language against Jeevan Lal Sahu, Lalpeela Sahu and Heera Kumari Sahu as a result of which Jeevan Lal Sahu sustained grievous injuries and others were also sustained injuries. The incident was reported to the police and FIR was lodged. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants/accused. 3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents. The statement of the appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.03.2013, learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the ingredients of the offence, which have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that as per the medical report of the injured persons proved by Dr. Suresh Kumar (PW-15) the injured persons sustained only simple injuries, there was no fracture found on the body of the injured persons and no injury was found to be life-threatening, therefore, at most the offence under Section 323/149 of IPC instead of 4 under Section 307/149 of IPC is made out against the appellants. He lastly submits that the appellants namely Resham Lal (A-1) & Rajendra (A-3) have already remained in jail for about 10 months & 13 days, the appellant Sundar Lal (A-2) has already remained in jail for about 11 months & 24 days and the appellants namely Kanshiram Sahu (A-4), Smt. Mogra Bai (A-5) & Dokari Bai (A-6) have already remained in jail for about 5 months & 16 days, the incident had taken place way back in the year 2010, and the appeal is pending since 2013, therefore, the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them and the case may be disposed of. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 8. In the case, injured Jeevan Lal Sahu (PW-1), Heera Kumari alias Heera Bai (PW-2), Lalpeela Sahu (PW-3), other witnesses Ghasiya Ram (PW-4), Geeta Ram (PW-5), Draupati Bai (PW-6), Loknath (PW-8), Kumari Purnima (PW-9), medical examination of the injured proved by Dr. Suresh Kumar (PW-15), Exhibit P-16, 17 and 18, Court statement of the investigating officer Sub-Inspector Ramji Nishad (PW-17) make it clear that in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the appellants were members, the armed appellants assaulted injured Jeevan Lal Sahu, Heera Kumari alias Heera Bai and Lalpeela Sahu, causing them injury and committing criminal intimidation by threatening to kill them. Thus, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 147 or 148 and 506 of Part-II of the Indian Penal Code is found to be in 5 accordance with the facts and evidence available on record. That conclusion is not contrary to the evidence available on record. 9. So far as the question of attempted murder of injured Jeevan Lal Sahu, Heera Kumari alias Heera Bai and Lalpila Sahu under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, in this regard, if we consider the argument of the appellant, it is noteworthy that after medical advice, no X-ray report of the three injured has been certified to prove that they have suffered any bone fracture. Even in his Court statement, while certifying the medical examination report of the injured, Dr. Suresh Kumar (PW-15) has not stated that any injury found on the injured was fatal for their life. Dr. Suresh has only described Heera Kumari's injury as serious, but it has not been clarified how that injury is grievous in the context of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. There is also no evidence that she was hospitalized for more than 20 days. 10. Considering the medical report of the injured proved by Dr. Suresh Kumar (PW-15), Jeevanlal Sahu has been reported to have two injuries on the head, one swelling on the right wrist and one swelling near the left shoulder. Similarly, Lal Peela Sahu has been reported to have a torn injury on his head and a swelling in the left shoulder and a scratch below the neck. Whereas Heera kumari has been reported to have a lacerated wound of 12x1x1 cm in the occipital region of the head which has been termed as serious. But it is not clear in what way it is serious. Thus, all the injuries found on the injured are lacerated wounds and have been caused by hard and blunt objects. The dispute between the parties is said to be regarding land and in view of the injuries found on the injured, the case does not appear to 6 be of attempt to murder but considering the nature of injuries, their case appears to be of voluntary causing simple hurt under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Looking to the evidence against the appellants, the conviction imposed upon them is converted/altered to Section 323/149 of the IPC from Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the conviction of the appellants namely Kanshiram Sahu (A-4), Smt. Mogra Bai (A-5) and Dokari Bai (A-6) for the offence punishable under Section 147 of IPC, appellants namely Resham Lal Sahu (A- 1), Sundar Lal Sahu (A-2) and Rajendra (A-3) for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC and all the appellants (A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6) for the offence punishable under Section 506 Part-II of IPC is hereby affirmed. 12. As regards the sentence, keeping in mind the fact that the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2010, and thereby more than 14 years have rolled by since then further considering the fact that the appellants namely Resham Lal (A-1) & Rajendra (A-3) have already remained in jail for about 10 months & 13 days, the appellant Sundar Lal (A-2) has already remained in jail for about 11 months & 24 days and the appellants namely Kanshiram Sahu (A-4), Smt. Mogra Bai (A-5) & Dokari Bai (A-6) have already remained in jail for about 5 months & 16 days, this Court thinks it proper to reduce the sentence imposed on the appellants to the period already undergone by them. 13. The conviction imposed upon the appellants is converted to Section 323/149 (Thrice) of the Indian Penal Code from Section 307/149 (Thrice) of the Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them for 7 the offence punishable under Sections 323/149 (Thrice), 147, 148 and 506 Part-II of IPC . However, the fine imposed upon each of the appellants by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. 14. So far as, appellant No. 2 – Sunder Lal Sahu is concerned, it is directed that the sentence awarded to him shall not affect his career in the future, if any, in any manner. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 16. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per the requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 17. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu