1 2025:CGHC:21009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2016 Ramdev Ram S/o Sobhnath Singh Gond Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Malgawa, P.S. Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, Distt. - Sarguja Chhattisgarh, Civil and Revenue District Sarguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent __________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Choudhary, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Isha Jajodia, PL ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 07/05/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.04.2016 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarguja (Abmikapur) (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.37/2015, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellants as under : 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 324 of the IPC R.I. for 01 year and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment for 06 months Under Section 326 of the IPC R.I. for 03 years and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment for 01 year Both sentences shall run concurrently 2. According to the case of prosecution on 09.01.2015, the complainant Puran was in his house. At that time, the accused Ramdev Ram was beating his wife Sanjho Bai with a tabbal near his house over some issue. Seeing this, the complainant Puran Ram came there and tried to intervene. Then, the accused Ramdev Ram said to him, “Why have you come between us husband and wife?” and threatened to kill him and hit him with a tabbal on the left side of his back and behind the knee of his left leg. He also hit his wife on the nose and right cheek, due to which she suffered serious injuries on her face. On the same day, FIR (Ex.P.-17) was registered to this effect. 3. During the investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, the spot map of the place of incident (Ex.P.-18) and Patwari Nazri Map (Ex.P.-1) were prepared and the accused was arrested. 3 4. After investigation, the charge sheet against the accused was filed before the Court concerned, from where, after surrender, the case was received by the Sessions Court for trial, from where the case was transferred to the Second Additional Sessions Judge Ambikapur, thereafter on transfer, this case was received by this Court. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein accused/appellant has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 6. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that he does not wants to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. She further submits that the incident took place on 09.01.2015 and he is facing lis since 2015. Appellant has undergone about 06 months, therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the 4 argument raised by counsel for the appellant, supported the impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 10. Injured- Puran Ram (PW-1) has deposed that he know the accused and he is from his village. He also know Sanjho Bai, who is wife of the appellant. It has been about 3-4 months since the incident. He was going to his house from the garden at about 2-2.30 in the afternoon. Accused Ramdev and his wife were fighting in the street. He forbade them from fighting. Then accused Ramdev hit him on his back and left leg with a drum. After that he went home. He was thrown and injured when accused Ramdev hit him with a drum. After that he came to the District Hospital, Ambikapur for treatment. He was admitted in the District Hospital, Ambikapur for about 6-7 days. 11. In his cross-examination, this witness has deposed that he had no quarrel with the accused in the past and the accused never quarreled with him before the incident. At the time of the incident, it was the time of Cherka festival. He drink alcohol. He do not know whether the accused drinks alcohol or not. He have never drunk alcohol with the accused. He have drunk alcohol with the 5 accused whenever there was a program in the village. He further stated that he was not in drunken state on the day of the incident. 12. Smt. Sanjho Bai (PW-2) has stated that appellant is her husband and she does not know Puran Ram. It has been almost 03 months since the incident. It was the time of Cherka festival. It was around 2 o'clock in the day. She was leaving the house and fell on the doorstep. Due to which she got an injury in her nose. Her husband did not beat her with a drum. At the time of the incident, her husband was not at home. He had gone out for work. 13. She further stated in Para-2 that “it is wrong to say that a fight broke out between her and her husband Ramdev when she called him for dinner. It is wrong to say that there was a fight between me and my husband since 2-3 days and it is also wrong to say that my husband ran after me with a drum to beat me. It is wrong to say that I ran away and sank in the barn. It is wrong to say that appellant hit me in the face and nose with a tabla. It is wrong to say that Puran came to stop the fight between her and her husband Ramdev. I do not know that appellant hit Puran in the back and on the left knee with a tabla. I do not know that Seema snatched the tabla from her husband and kept it with herself.” 14. Dr. Sarita Singh (PW-10) has deposed that she was posted as Medical Officer in District Hospital, Ambikapur since 2000 as an Incharge Radiologist since 2012. On 06/02/2015, the Police 6 Station Incharge had asked the injured Puran Ram for information about his injuries on the basis of bed head ticket and X-ray plate. That complaint was marked as Ex.P.6. On the basis of that complaint, she had prepared a report on the same date on the basis of X-ray plate and bed head ticket. On 06/02/2015, Constable Kishun Sai Paikara 249 of Kotwali Ambikapur brought the chest X-ray plate of injured Puran Ram, along with MLC report for examination. During examination, she found that the left side rib of the injured was broken. Report is Ex.P-7. 15. In her cross-examination, she deposed that at the time of the medical report of injured Puran Ram, she did not find any permanent disability. It is true that apart from the drum, other instruments can also cause injuries like the one that Puran Ram suffered. 16. Dr. Vijay Agrawal (PW-11) has deposed that he was posted as Medical Officer in the District Hospital, Ambikapur from November 2011 to February 2015. On 09.01.15, Puran Ram was brought by 108 ambulance, at that time he examined him and found that there was a cut wound of 10 x 2 cms on the back of his shoulder, a little below the scapula, and muscles and bones were visible and blood was oozing from that place. A deep cut injury was found on the thoracolumbar region in the back of the waist measuring 12 cm x 2 cm and muscles and bone were visible and 7 blood was flowing from that place. There was a 4 cm x 2 cm cut wound on the lateral part of the left knee of the injured person and the muscles and bone were visible and blood was flowing from that place. All the above injuries were likely to have been caused by a hard and sharp object. After examination, he advised the injured to get a chest CT scan and X-ray and to show the injured to a surgical specialist and admitted the injured to the hospital for treatment. The report prepared by him Ex.P-8. 17. After examining the X-ray report and CT scan report, he found that according to the X-ray, fracture was found in the left tenth rib of the injured and according to the CT scan report also the left tenth rib was mentioned to be sunken inwards and broncho ectatic changes were found in his right middle lobe and an injury was found inside in the lower lobe. According to his opinion injury which was on the scapula region was of serious nature and the remaining injuries were found to be of normal nature. The query report given by me is Ex.P-10 and CT scan is Ex.P-10A and X-ray plate is Ex.P-10B. 18. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties. Further considering the evidence of injured witness and doctors who examined the injured- Puran Ram and their reports. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned trial Court after considering the material available on 8 record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 01 year & RI for 03 years respectively. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in recordings the findings as regards conviction of the appellant under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC. 19. Now the question arises for consideration is whether sentence awarded to appellant by trial Court can be reduced to period already undergone or what would be adequate sentence to be imposed in facts and circumstances of the case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP reported in (2004) 7 SCC 257 observed in paragraph 8 as under : “8.This brings us to the next question in regard to the reduction of sentence made by the High Court. In criminal cases awarding of sentence is not a mere formality. Where the statute has given the court a choice of sentence with maximum and minimum limit presented then an element of discretion is vested with the court. This discretion can not be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically. It will have to be exercised taking into consideration the gravity of 9 offence, the manner in which it is committed, the age, the sex of the accused, in other words, the sentence to be awarded will have to be considered in the background of the fact of each case and the court while doing so should bear in mind the principle of proportionality. The sentence awarded should be neither excessively harsh nor ridiculously low.” 20. While determining the quantum of punishment various factors needs to be considered. Nature and gravity of offence, penalty provided for the offence, manner of commission of offence, proportionality between crime & punishment, character of the offender, age and sex of the offender, antecedents if any, possibility of reforms, impact of crime on society etc. are some of the relevant consideration in determining the quantum of punishment. Court has to strike a balance between crime and punishment. Possibility of reform is an important mitigating factor while imposing appropriate sentence. Undue sympathy should not be given only because of long drawn pendency of criminal proceedings. 21. Regarding sentence part, the trial Court has sentenced the appellant for RI for 01 year in Section 324 IPC and RI for 03 years in Section 326 IPC (both sentences shall run concurrently). The incident had occurred on 09.01.2015, the appellant was aged about 10 53 years at that point of time, there is no previous antecedent of the appellant and the appellant has already undergone about 06 months out of period of 03 years sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon him, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Ordered accordingly. 22. In the result, conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Sections 324 and 326 of IPC is maintained. However, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 23. The instant criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 24. Copy of this judgment and record be sent back. The appellant is on bail, his bail bond will remain in operation for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant