1 2025:CGHC:22838 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1508 of 2024 Hemsingh Yadav S/o Preetam Yadav, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Amadi (D), Police Station And District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 10.06.2025 1. In compliance of order dated 11.04.2025 of this Court, the Appellant is present along with his Counsel before this Court today. His presence be marked. Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.06.13 10:55:29 +0530 2 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 14 A(1) of the SC/ST Act challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.07.2024 passed by learned Special Judge under SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 56/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 2 months. 3. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, on 06.10.2022 complainant Harish Devwanshi reported the matter in Dehati Nalisi that on 05.10.2022, at around 11:30 PM, near general shop, main road, under the jurisdiction of Aamdi (D) Police Station, the accused/appellant assaulted his brother Paras Devwanshi on his neck, ear and Jaw with a knife due to which Paras sustained injuries on his jaw and half of his ear was cut off, seeing the assault when complainant rushed to the scene, the appellant fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the matter was reported, based on which FIR was registered against the appellant and after completion of investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 307 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the appellant of offence U/s 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and U/s 307 of the IPC. However, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in 3 second paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the appellant has family responsibilities and he has already remained in jail for about 1 year 11 months 6 days. The incident took place in the year 2022 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. This appeal is pending since 2024. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 9. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of injured Paras Devwanshi (PW-3), his brother Harish Devwanshi (PW-2) and Dr. Vaishali Chourasiya (PW-1), establish the involvement of the Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 10.As regards the sentence part, taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2022. The appellant having family responsibilities, he is facing the lis since 2022 and he has already remained in jail for about 1 year, 11 months & 6 days. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellant to jail and the ends of justice would 4 serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 326 of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 4 years is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 1 year 11 months & 6 days. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 12. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham