1 2025:CGHC:44392 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1582 of 2023 Sitaram Kaurava @ Tangu Kaurava S/o Late Mogla Kaurava Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Kothali, Sanmandara, P.S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.09.2025 1. The case is listed for hearing on the PUD received from the jail that though the appellant has allowed bail by this Court on 06.03.2025, but he could not be released as he is unable to furnish the sureties and it has been prayed by counsel for the appellant that the appellant may be released on personal bond. But, considering the fact that the applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal code and out of the sentence of 10 years, he has already served out 03 years and 09 months in jail, and with the consent of learned counsel for the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 parties, as well as taking into account the period of detention undergone by the appellant, the appeal is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.06.2023 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balrampur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 01/2022 whereby the the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner: Sentence Conviction Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine amount of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 03 months. 3. Judgment of conviction is challenged on the ground that without there being any clinching and reliable evidence against the appellant, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed an illegality. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Chhotan Korwa, lodged a report at Police Station – Shankargarh, on 06.01.2021, stating that on 01.08.2021 (Saturday) at about 09:00 A.M., he along with his wife Dasohani, Konda Ram, Sarikha, and Tangu, was eating food. At that time, Tangu kept getting up and walking here and there. The complainant ask Tangu that why did he keep getting up again and again, and told him to sit properly 3 and eat his food. Upon this Tangu replied that he would show him and by abusing obscene and filthy languages about the complainant’s mother and sister. Thereafter, he struck the complainant on the head with a hoe. When the complainant stood up, Tangu further threatened that he would kill and throw him away, and by saying that attacked on him with an Axe (Tangi). When the complainant raised his hand to save himself, the blow struck his right wrist. Konda and the complainant’s wife Sohani intervened to stop the assault. On the basis of the said report, a crime was registered at Police Station Shankargarh and the matter was taken into investigation. 5. On the basis of the said information, the First Information Report (Ex.P-1) was recorded. The injured was referred to C.H.C. Shankargarh for medical examination through a requisition (Ex.P- 12). A site map (Ex.P-2) and a spot map (Ex.P-3) were prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded in presence of the witnesses. Since it was found that the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), and 307 of the IPC, he was formally arrested as per the arrest memo. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 4 6. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Trial Court on 07.12.2021. Subsequently, the Trial Court, on 21.12.2021, held that the case was triable by the Court of Session and accordingly committed the matter to the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. The Sessions Case was then registered as Sessions Case No. 01/2022. 7. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. 8. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 2 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court is illegal, incorrect and perverse as per prosecution story and material available on record. It is submitted that the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC by the learned trial Court, but the injuries received by the injured which are 3 in numbers caused by the appellant by Tangi, and out of which two injuries are simple in nature, first one is the stitched wound on his left parietal region of 5 skull, and the second one is a stitched wound at right forearm, and the third one is said to be grievous injury resulting swelling in right hand read swelling and fracture on right hand. It is further submitted that as per the MLC report of the injured, goes to show that the doctor has opined that the injuries No.1 and 2 are found to be simple in nature, but the injury No.3 as per the X-ray of the right hand is concerned, the Ulna Bone is found to be fractured. On the question of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the applicant has already undergone 03 years and 08 months of imprisonment and has paid the fine amount of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of the fine, he was to undergo 03 months of further rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant is in jail since 17.12.2021, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. On the other hand, learned State Counsel supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, in which no interference is called for. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned as also record of the trial Court. 12. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 03 months. Considering the material available on 6 record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, also the injuries sustained to the injured caused by the appellant/accused which are 3 in number, and out of which one is grievous in nature resulting a fracture on Ulna Bone of right hand of the injured, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC. 13. So far as the sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is concerned, considering the fact that at present, appellant in jail since 17.12.2021 and incident took place in a heat of passion and on sudden provocation without any predetermination, nature of injuries and further considering the fact that out of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment as has been awarded by the learned trial Court, the appellant has already served out jail sentence of about more than 3 years and 8 months, and he has already deposited the fine amount of Rs. 100/- imposed upon him by the trial Court, therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may suffice to meet the ends of justice, as such, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon the appellant under aforementioned Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. He be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. 7 15. The Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar