1 2025:CGHC:6418 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1185 of 2021 Satish Kumar S/o Shri Rajkumar Bombarde, Aged About 18 Years R/o Om Nagar, Urla, Near Railway Crossing, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent WITH CRA No. 1186 of 2021 Swapnil Sharma S/o Shri Sanjay Sharma Aged About 18 Years R/o Urla, Near Railway Crossing, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer , Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent WITH CRA No. 1319 of 2021 Nilesh Kumar Chaure S/o Shri Prem Daschaure Aged About 18 Years R/o Om Nagar, Urla, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Durg , District Durg (C.G.). ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg (C.G.). --- Respondent WITH 2 CRA No. 1804 of 2024 Dinesh Kumar Chaure S/o Premdas Chaure Aged About 29 Years R/o Om Nagr, Urla, P.S. Mohan Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Arakshi Kendra Mohan Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 04.02.2025 1. CRA Nos.1185/2021, 1186/2021 & 1319/2021 have been preferred by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.10.2021 passed in Sessions Case No.135/2018 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.). 2. CRA No.1804/2022 has been preferred by the appellant under Section 415(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2024 passed in Sessions Case No.135/2018 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), whereby the appellants stands convicted and sentenced as under: Appellants- Satish Kumar & Swapnil Sharma Conviction Sentence In Default of Payment of Fine Under Section 307/34 of IPC SI for 05 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- Additional SI for 02 months 3 Under Section 294 of IPC SI for 01 month and fine amount of Rs.100/- Additional SI for 10 days Appellant- Nilesh Kumar Chaure Conviction Sentence In Default of Payment of Fine Under Section 307/34 of IPC SI for 05 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- Additional SI for 02 months Under Section 294 of IPC SI for 01 month and fine amount of Rs.100/- Additional SI for 10 days Under Section 25(1-B) (B) of the Arms Act SI for 03 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- Additional SI for 02 months Under Section 27 of the Arms Act SI for 03 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- Additional SI for 02 months Appellant- Dinesh Kumar Conviction Sentence In Default of Payment of Fine Under Section 307 of IPC SI for 05 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- Additional SI for 02 months Under Section 294 of IPC SI for 01 month and fine amount of Rs.100/- Additional SI for 10 days 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 29.06.2018, a complaint has been made by the Complainant- Lihanta Meshram before the Mohannagar Police Station, District Durg that on 29.06.2018, his son- Ashish Meshram was returning home from Rasmada after duty. Near Om Nagar Urla Purva Grocery 4 Store in Durg, on the basis of old enmity, Nilesh Chaure, Dinesh Chaure, Satish and Swapnil abused his son by filthy and obscene words and thretened to kill him and beat him with sword and fists. Nilesh hit his son on the head with a sword and caused serious injury and the rest beat him with fists. Her son had a serious injury on the head, blood was oozing out and Mathur Yadav and the people around saw the incident. The accused hit her son on the head with a sword and caused serious injury with the intention of killing him. On the basis of said report, the FIR was registered in Mohannagar Police Station in FIR No.239/2018 against the accused/appellants. 4. The prosecution case further states that during the said investigation, a side map of the crime scene and a seizure sheet were prepared by the police. Further, during the investigation, the memorandum statement of the accused was recorded in front of the witnesses. In the investigation, the accused were arrested as per the arrest sheet in front of the witnesses and the family members of the accused were informed about the arrest. Further in the investigation, the seized articles were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical testing along with the memorandum of the Superintendent of Police, Durg and the test was obtained. 5. During the investigation, the statement of the witnesses were recorded as per their statements. After further necessary investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 307/34, 323 of IPC was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg against the appellants. In this case, the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 307/34, 323 of IPC have been committed by the accused, hence, the case was received by the Sessions Judge, 5 Durg (C.G.). The charge of the offence punishable under Sections 307/34, 323 IPC and Sections 25(1-B) (B) and 27 of the Arms Act was framed against the accused-Nilesh Kumar Choure and he denied the offence. 6. In order to prove the charge against the appellants/accused, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of appellants was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence witness was examined by the appellants. 7. After appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph two of this judgment. Hence, these appeals. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly been convicted the appellants without any sufficient and clinching evidence available on record against the appellants. He further contended that the learned Sessions Court has erred in convicting the appellants only on the basis of testimonies of interested witnesses, whereas the material independent witnesses were not supported the case of prosecution. There are contradictions and omissions in the statement/deposition of prosecution witnesses, falsifying the case of prosecution. It is further contended that even there is a major discrepancies and omissions in the statement of the Investigating Officer and the victim which cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel further contended that prosecution has failed to adduce any cogent and reliable piece of evidence to prove the guilt of appellants. Without there being any sufficient, cogent and clinching evidence/material available on record, therefore, conviction of appellants is not sustainable. It is 6 therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment and the appellants may kindly be acquitted, in the interest of justice. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court having appreciated the overall oral and documentary evidence has rightly recorded a finding of guilt against the appellants which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeals being sans merits is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 11. Though learned counsel for appellants has not challenged conviction of appellants and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence available on record. 12. Mathur Yadav (PW-1), eye witness to the incident has stated in his Court statement that he had identified all the accused and also stated that on the date of incident, he was at his shop and his shop was near the incident spot and on hearing the noise, he went to the incident spot and saw that the accused were beating Ashish. On seeing the incident, he came to inform Ashish’s family members, Ashish had got head injury in the incident and had injuries on many parts of his body. The accused had also beaten the injured with stones, hands & 7 fists. 13. Injured/victim- Ashish Meshram (PW-2) has stated in his Court statement that he recognized all the accused persons. On the date of incident, i.e., 29.06.2018, he had left with his Supervisor Ramchandra Gautam to come home. Ramchandra Gautam had dropped him near the Grocery Store Chowk. There he saw the accused sitting near the car. The accused started abusing him by filthy and obscene words, regarding old matter. When he asked about the filthy language, the accused started kicking and punching him. Accused Swapnil caught his leg and hit him on the head. He fell on the ground. Accused Dinesh Choure hit him on the head with a brick he was holding his hand. Accused Nilesh caught him in his hand with a sword. He was badly inured. He had a lot of injuries on his left rib, back and neck. He further stated that his neighbors Mathur Yadav and Chandra Shekhar witnessed to this incident. If the said witnesses had not come at that time and saved him, the accused would have kill him. 14. Chandra Shekhar Khobragade (PW-3), eye witness to the incident has stated in his Court statement that he had identified all the accused and also stated that on the date of incident, he had gone out for a walk after dinner. At that time, he saw that the accused were abusing Ashish Meshram and after that the accused started beating Ashish. Accused Swapnil and Satish were kicking and punching Ashish. Accused Nilesh Choure hit Ashish with a sword and Ashish got injured in the back. Mathur and he from his neighborhood rushed to the spot to save Ashish. Then the accused fled from the spot. 8 15. Smt. Lihanta Meshram (PW-4), mother of the injured- Ashish Meshram has stated in her Court statement that she had identified all the accused. At the time of incident, she was in her house when Mathur Yadav came and told her about the incident. Thereafter, when she went to the spot, she saw that her son was lying covered in blood at the spot. She asked her son as to what happened. Then taking the names of the accused and narrated the incident. 16. In order to consider the medical report of the victim, I have to examine the evidence available on record produced by the prosecution. 17. Dr. Shrawan Donariya (PW-12), who examined the injured/victim- Ashish Meshram has stated that the injuries sustained by the victim are as follows :- (a)- Incise wound which was in the middle of the head and was in sized 7x1 cm. Blood was oozing out of it. It can be a sharp and hard object. (b)- Lacerated wound in the middle of the head measuring 6x1.5 cm. Bleeding was evident from the wound which could have been caused by a hard or blunt object. Also advised to the Surgeon. His report is Ex.P-14. 18. Dr. Smt. Sarita Minz (PW-15), who examined the injured/victim- Ashish Meshram has stated that on examination of the injuries, she found that he had a bandage wound on his head and he was feeling pain in the lower part of his chest. She advised him to get a CT Scan of the head and X-ray of the chest. All the tests were normal. Her report is Ex.P-18. 19. In her cross-examination, this witness has stated that there was no injury on 9 any part of the injured person’s body except his head. 20. Section 307 of IPC provides that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of the murder. Therefore, the question of intention to kill or knowledge of death in terms of Section 307 of IPC is a question of fact and not one of law. It would all dependent on the facts of the given case. 21. In this case Dr. Smt. Sarita Minz (PW-15), who examined the injured/victim- Ashish Meshram has stated that on examination of the injuries, she found that he had a bandage wound on his head and he was feeling pain in the lower part of his chest. She advised him to get a CT Scan of the head and X-ray of the chest. All the tests were normal. On examination of the injured, there was no fracture in the head of the injured/victim. Injury No.2 examined by the Dr. Shrawan Donariya (PW-12) is simple in nature. Victim was admitted in the Government Hospital, Durg on 29.06.2018 and was discharged on 02.07.2018 after two days of his admission. 22. Considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramdas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : (2009) 4 SCC 57, where opinion of the doctor proved that the deceased had not died due to direct result of injury, the appellant was liable to be convicted under Section 324 IPC and not under Section 307 of IPC. 23. In this case, doctor has not found any fracture on head of the injured/victim and the wound found the head of the victim is simple in nature. Though injury was sustained on vital part of the body, i.e., head, but there is no fracture found in the head of the victim. There was no intervening circumstances that injury 10 caused to death of the injured. Considering the above-stated facts, submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, pleadings made in the appeals and other material/evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has committed error in arriving at a conclusion that appellants are guilty for offence as stated in para two of this judgment specially looking to the nature of injury sustained by the injured as the injuries are simple in nature, therefore, the ends of justice would meet if the conviction made under Section 307 IPC is altered to Section 324 IPC, therefore, conviction of all the accused persons under Section 307 IPC is altered to Section 324 IPC and sentence awarded to the appellants is altered from SI for 05 years to RI for one year and fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 24. Now coming to the conviction of appellant- Nilesh Kumar Chaure made under Section 25(1-B)(B) & 27 of the Arms Act. Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959 provides as under :- 4. Licence for acquisition and possession of arms of specified description in certain cases. “If the Central Government is of opinion that having regard to the circumstances prevailing in any area it is necessary or expedient in the public interest that the acquisition, possession or carrying of arms other than firearms should also be regulated, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that this section shall apply to the area specified in the notification and thereupon no person shall acquire, have in his possession or carry in that area arms of such class or description as may be specified in that 11 notification unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.” 25. In this case there is no notification or official gazette filed by the prosecution before the trial Court and the weapon used by the appellant- Nilesh Kumar Chaure is not a fire arm, therefore, offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B) (B) & 27 of the Arms Act are not maintainable against this appellant. Therefore, he is acquitted of the said charges. 26. In the result, the instant criminal appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 27. Record of case be sent back forthwith with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.02.25 17:27:11 +0530