1 CRA No. 188 of 2016 2025:CGHC:29610 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 188 of 2016 1 - Derha Ram S/o Ramiya Banjare Aged About 39 Years R/o - Dhourabhata, Chowki - Gidhpuri, P.S. Pallari, District - Baloda - Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Punkumar S/o Samaylal Dahariya Aged About 39 Years R/o - Dhourabhata, Chowki - Gidhpuri, P.S. Pallari, District - Baloda - Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Naindas S/o Ramiya Banjare Aged About 50 Years R/o - Dhourabhata, Chowki - Gidhpuri, P.S. Pallari, District - Baloda - Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Hemlal @ Hemu S/o Ramiya Banjare Aged About 35 Years R/o - Dhourabhata, Chowki - Gidhpuri, P.S. Pallari, District - Baloda - Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S. H. O. - Pallari, District - Baloda - Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, PL Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 01/07/2025 Heard. 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 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.07.02 18:02:40 +0530 2 CRA No. 188 of 2016 28/01/2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 52/2013 by the learned Sessions Judge, Balodabazaar, District- Balodabazaar (C.G.) whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 323/34 & 307/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 01 month with fine of Rs. 500/- and RI for 03 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, respectively, with default stipulations. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Complainant Gendu Ram lodged a report at the Police Station Palari under Police Outpost Gidhpuri to the effect that when on 28/02/2010, he along with Santu and Dharmu was sitting after having dinner, at about 9:30 pm, the appellants came there and abused in the name of his mother and sister and threatened to kill them. Subsequently, they hit all of them with sticks on the head, wrist and back. When Santu and Dharmu came to intervene, they also beat them with sticks on the head, legs and elbows. On the basis of the oral report of the Complainant, the First Information Report (Ex.P/2) was registered, and the injured were treated on the same day at CHC Palari vide Ex.P/4 to Ex.P/8. During the investigation, the spot map of the incident place was prepared vide Ex.P/15. Bamboo sticks were seized from the appellants vide Ex.P/12 & P/13. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses in its support. Statements of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded their 3 CRA No. 188 of 2016 innocence and false implication in the matter. 4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 28/01/2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. There is counter FIR also filed by the present appellants, as such, the Marpeet was committed from both sides. He would submit that the Appellants have no criminal antecedents and they are on bail and have never misused the liberty granted by this Court. Thus, the Appellants may be extended the Probation of Offenders Act. Learned counsel would further submit the appellants and the complainant party are living in the same society, they are residing happily and cozily since last so many years, they want to live with peace, as such, both the parties have entered into the compromise during pendecny of the trial and from the said fact, it can be seen that they do not want to prosecute the matter further more. Therefore, he prays that the sentence part awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Ms. R.C.S. Deo, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that the conviction of the appellants is well merited which does not call for any interference. 4 CRA No. 188 of 2016 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Injured- Genduram (PW3) & Santkumar alias Santu (PW4), both have stated during their statement that on the date of incident at about 8-9 o'clock in the night, they were making laddus for their nephew's wedding in the house, they heard a commotion in the street outside and Santkumar's son Nandkumar came running shouting papa-papa, behind him were the four accused who were coming while abusing. On hearing this, Santkumar (PW4) opened the door of the house and as soon as Santkumar asked appellant Derha (henceforth ‘A1’) what was the matter uncle, A1 abused him. A1 assaulted Santkumar (PW4) on the head with a rod, the other three appellants/accused also hit him on his shoulder, thigh and other places with sticks. While the appellants were beating Santkumar (PW4), Gendu Ram (PW3) came out and then A1 also hit Gendu on the head with a rod and the other three accused hit him on his thigh, arm and shoulder with sticks. 9. PW3, Gendu Ram further states that when Dharmu came to intervene he was also assaulted by a stick. Subsequently, they lodged the report. This witness has further stated that since Harishankar and Derha (A1) had contested the Panchayat elections against each other and Harishankar belongs to their family, so he (Gendu Ram) and Santkumar had supported Harishankar, Derha and other accused had a grudge against them on this matter. 5 CRA No. 188 of 2016 10. Doctor-F.R. Nirala (PW11) has medically examined the injured persons. He has stated that he examined Genduram and found the following injuries: (i) Cut wound with blood oozing out, size 1.5 inches by 1/3 cm, which was on the forehead. (ii) Contusion, size 3.5 inches by 1 inch, which was below the left shoulder. (iii) Complaint of pain, which was reported on the ankle. (iv) Scratch, size 1 cm. multiplied by 0.5 cm., which was on the lower one-third part of the left arm. 11. According to the doctor, the above injuries could have been caused by a hard and blunt object. Except injury number-1 on the forehead, he has stated that the remaining injuries are of simple in nature. He had advised to get the X-ray of the injured person's head done, he has submitted his report as per Ex.P/7. 12. No such evidence has been produced on record later by the prosecution, on the basis of which, it can be said that the head injury sustained by the Complainant was dangerous to life. Even no X-ray report was produced by the prosecution. 13. Doctor F.R. Nirala has further stated that on 01/03/2010 itself he had examined the injured Santu (PW4). During the examination he found that the injured was lethargic and was not fully conscious. He found the following injuries on his forehead- (i) A cut wound with blood oozing out of it, the size of which was 2 inches X 0.5 cm X 0.5 cm, which was on the forehead. The doctor has stated that the injury was caused by a 6 CRA No. 188 of 2016 hard and blunt object. He opined that the nature of the injury can be told only after X-ray and CT scan. It is apparent from the record that injured Santkumar (PW4) was discharged from the hospital on 06/03/2010 after about 3 days. 14. From bare perusal of the statements of these witnesses, it is crystal clear that on the date of incident, the appellants assaulted the Complainant and others with hands and sticks. Nothing has been brought on by the defence in their cross-examination. 15. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Complainant Gendu (PW3) and Santkumar (PW4), I am of the opinion that the trial Court did not commit any illegality in convicting the appellants under Section 323/34 and 307/34 of the IPC. 16. So far as, the sentence part is concerned, it is apparent from the record that parties have entered into a compromise during pendency of the trial. 17. Considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, the fact that the incident took place around 15 years ago; the Appellants have no criminal antecedent; during pendency of this appeal they were on bail; and did not misuse the liberty granted to them and they want to live happily and cozily and even they moved an application for compounding the offence during pendency of the trial, and keeping in view the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478 wherein considering the fact that fine amount has been deposited and paid to the victim as also the long passage of time, the accused was sentenced to the period already 7 CRA No. 188 of 2016 undergone, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellants back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served, if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. It is stated by the counsel for the appellants as well as State that A1 & A2 have remained in jail for about 46 days and A3 & A4 have remained in jail for about 29 days. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 323/34 & 307/34 of the IPC, their jail sentence are reduced to the period already undergone by them. The fine amount awarded by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 5000/- against each appellants. If the appellants fail to deposit the enhanced fine amount, they shall undergo RI for 3 months. 19. It is directed that the fine amount to be deposited by each of the appellants total Rs. 20,000/- shall be disburssed equally to Injured- Gendu (PW3) and Santkumar (PW4). 20. The Appellants are reported to be on bail. Their 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. 21. 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 Rahul/Gowri