1 2025:CGHC:25026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1054 of 2014 Chatram Shrivas S/o Udal Prasad Shrivas, aged about 25 Years R/o Mandragondi, P.S.- Sakti, Civil And Rev. Distt. Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Janjgir, Civil And Rev. Distt. Janjgir - Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, PL Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 17.06.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 16.10.2014 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, Session Division- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in S.T. No. 64/2014, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 324 of IPC R.I. for two years 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant- Yogesh Kashyap (PW-6) lives in village Jarve (C) and studies in class XII in Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Higher Secondary School Janjgir. The accused Chhatram has opened a salon shop next to the middle school near the complainant’s house. The accused Chhatram always under the influence of liquor and used to ask the complainant to drink liquor too, but the complainant always denied the same. The accused Chhatram sometimes used to ask the complainant for money to drink liquor, but the complainant did not give him money. Due to this animosity flared up between them, the accused Chhatram was standing with his motorcycle at around 8.15 pm on the date of incident i.e., 23-12-2013 and asked the complainant to come near and check the motorcycle saying that as it was not starting. When the complainant bent down to look at his motor cycle, at that very moment accused Chhatram assaulted on his neck with a sharp object with the intention of killing him, due to which complainant’s throat got slit and he ran towards his house screaming for help, holding his neck with his hands, then the accused also started his motor cycle and fled from the spot. Thereafter, the complainant went home and told his family members about the incident, after that he was admitted to the hospital for treatment. As per the medical memo, the dying statement of the applicant was recorded. On the report of the above incident being lodged by the complainant in Janjgir Police Station, the offence was registered. After completion of the due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and another co-accused person namely Haricharan before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, thereafter the matter was committed to learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir and the appellant was put to trial for offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 307 of IPC and another co-accused person was put to trial for offence under Section 120-B of IPC. 3 3. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case against the appellant and another co- accused person. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case and pleaded their innocence and false implication in this case. However, in their defence the accused persons did not adduce any witness. 4. The learned trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has convicted and sentenced the present appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has not properly evaluated the material available on record and wrongly convicted the appellant. All the prosecution witnesses are relative of the complainant and they are interested witnesses, however, the prosecution story does not hold any water as there is no such eye witness of the incident. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the memorandum and seizure witnesses have turned hostile. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly, so, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC, as imposed by the Trial Court is just and proper, the incident took place in the year 2013, this appeal is pending since 2014, the appellant is now aged more than 30 4 years and he is remained in jail for about 4 months and he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is lucid from record of learned learned trial Court that it framed charges for offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 307 of IPC against the appellant and offence under Section 120-B of IPC against the another co-accused person and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court acquitted the appellant and another co-accused person of offence under Section 120-B of IPC, but convicted the present appellant for offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC instead of 307 of IPC. 9. 9. Yogesh Sahu (PW-6), who is the complainant clearly stated that on the date of incident, the present appellant assaulted him by razor (ustura) on his neck, then he lodged an FIR before the concerned police station for the said offence. 10. Dr. N. K. Dhruve (PW-8), who examined the complainant- Yogesh 5 Kashyap (PW-6) and found one injury on his neck and gave his report vide Ex. P/8. Other witnesses namely Pratap Singh Chandra (PW-4), Chetan Prasad Tiwari (PW-5), Kamla Bai (PW-7), Mukesh (PW-9), Santosh Kumar Sarivan (PW-10) and Rashmi Kant Mishra (PW-11) have supported all the prosecution’s proceedings and statement of the complainant- Yogesh Kashyap (PW-6). Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality or irregularity in the findings as recorded by learned Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant. So, the conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed. 11. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2013 and nearly 11 years have rolled by since then, this appeal is pending since 2014. The appellant is now aged more than 30 years; appellant has remained in jail for about 04 months and he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail. Hence, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded under Section 324 of IPC by the Trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 12. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 13. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of 6 provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 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/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL