1 2025:CGHC:27452 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 258 of 2016 1 Uma Shankar Pandey S/o Shri Chandrika Prasad @ Chandra Pandey Aged About 30 Years R/o Ambedkar Awas, Chakardhar Nagar, P.S. Jute Mill, Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jute Mill, Kotwali, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha,Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 24/06/2025 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 30.01.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 69/2014 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, Dist Raigarh (C.G.) whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.26 10:30:01 +0530 2 325 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 200/-, with default stipulation. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 05.07.10, at about 1.00 hours in the night, the complainant Prem Shankar Mishra, who is constable posted in GRP Raigarh, was returning from the duty to his house at that time, the present appellant called him and started abusing and also assaulted with hands and fists. He also took the amount sum of Rs. 4000/- from the pocket of the complainant and ran away from the spot. On account of assault committed by the appellant, the complainant received injury and admitted in the hospital. Subsequently, the report was lodged and investigation was carried on. The appellant was arrested and a charge-sheet was filed against him. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30.01.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 3 5. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution witnesses are contradictory and such statements are not reliable and admissible under the law. He further submits that complainant Prem Shankar (P.W. 1) who has stated that the present appellant has abused him in public place and also stated marpeet to the complainant, however, he has not stated regarding assault by the present appellant with deadly weapon. Even there is no proof of record to cause voluntarily grievous hurt to the complainant. Therefore the offence under section 325 of IPC is not attracted in the case. He further submits that there is no evidence on record to prove the facts that the appellant has caused voluntarily grievous hurt to the complainant. 6. Mr. R.C.S. Deo, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 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. The victim PW-1 namely Prem Shankar Mishra himself stated in cross examination that when he was climbing the stairs, Umashankar came to him. He further stated that he was in uniform at that time and as soon as Umashankar came near him, 4 he pushed him and he lost his balance and fell down on the floor and sustained injuries. After that, Umashankar started jumping on his stomach and chest and started kicking on his face. 9. Dr. R.K. Agrawal has been examined as PW3. He conducted the medical examination of the victim and stated that the victim was unconscious at the time of examination and had a blunt, incised wound on the inside of both the lips. A one inch diameter swelling spread over the left side of the back of the head and there was a red swelling around his left eye. He further stated that the victim was admitted to the male surgery department of the hospital for further treatment. In this regard, he has given a report of Exhibit P-3. He also stated in his cross-examination that injury could have been caused by falling and the injury on the lips could also have been caused by a blow of a blunt object. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Victim, further considering the evidence adduced by the victim which is duly corroborated by the medical evidence, I am of the opinion that the trial Court did not commit any illegality in convicting the appellant under Section 325 of the IPC. However, looking to the nature of injury sustained by the appellant and also the fact that the injury sustained by the victim are not grievous in nature and also the fact that the incident is of the year 2010, the offence under section 325 IPC is converted to the offence under 5 section 323 of the IPC. 11. So far as, the sentence part is concerned, 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 age of the appellant at the relevant time i.e. 30 years; he has no criminal antecedent; during pendency of this appeal the appellant was on bail since 2016; and did not misuse the liberty granted to him and keeping in view the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellant back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served, if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 23 days and the fine amount of Rs. 200/- imposed by the Trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- with default sentence and out of the said amount, Rs. 15000/- is directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is convicted under section 323 of the IPC and the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine sentence of Rs. 200/- imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-. If the appellant fails to deposit the said fine amount, he shall suffer additional R.I. for two months. The fine amount already deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted accordingly. 6 The entire fine amount, Rs. 15,000/- shall be payable to the complainant as compensation. 13. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His 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. 14. 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 Gowri/ Jyoti