1 CRA No.907 of 2016 2025:CGHC:35426 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 907 of 2016 1 - Gulshan Dhruv S/o Late Bahur Dhruv Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Palaud, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sadhuram Chandrakar S/o Krishna Chandrakar Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Palaud, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dashru Dhruv S/o Late Bahur Dhruv Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Palaud, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Raja Dhruv S/o Gulshan Dhruv Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Palaud, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mandir Hasaud, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, PL Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 23/07/2025 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 11/07/2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 123/2015 by the learned VIII Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.07.25 16:24:45 +0530 2 CRA No.907 of 2016 Name of Appellants Conviction Sentence Gulshan Dhruv (A1), Sadhuram Chandrakar (A2), Dashru Dhruv (A3) & Raja Dhruv (A4) Under Section 326/34 of the IPC RI for five years along with fine with default stipulation. Sadhuram Chandrakar (A2) & Dashru Dhruv (A3) Additionally Under Sections 25 & 27 (1) of the Arms Act RI for one year with fine of Rs. 500/- ; and RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, respectively, with default stipulations. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that Surmila Chaturvedi (henceforth ‘the Complainant’) has lodged a report that on 22/02/2015 at about 02:30 pm near Falod School, the appellants, by saying to the husband of the Complainant that he had set up on fire the house of Gopi Chaturvedi, quarelled with him and subsequently, they assaulted him by a rod, sword and iron pipe, due to which, the injured sustained grievous injuries. It has been alleged that when the Complainant tried to intervene, she was also assaulted. Based on the above report, a crime no. 45/2015 for the offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC was registered against the appellants. The investigation was carried on. The injured was sent for medical examination. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed 3 CRA No.907 of 2016 against the appellants. Charges were framed and the same were read over to the appellants which they denied and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 11/07/2006 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. There was previous enmity between A1 & injured and A1 had also lodged an FIR against the injured. The witnesses of memorandum have not supported the case of the prosecution. There are material contradiction and omissions in the statements of the witnesses. According to the learned counsel, the injury sustained by the injured Gopi Chaturvedi is simple in nature. He would alternatively submit that the jail sentence awarded to the appellant is on higher side. The appellants have already remained in jail for about 2 years and 10 months, they have no criminal antecedents and they are on bail and never misused the liberty granted by this Court. Thus, the appellants may be extended the benefit the Probation of Offenders Act. 4 CRA No.907 of 2016 4. Mr. R.C.S Deo, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that looking the weapons seized from the appellants used in assault, it is apparent that the appellants inflicted the injuries on the Injured, as such the conviction of the appellants is well merited which does not call for any interference. 5. 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. 6. PW7- Surmila Chaturvedi (complainant) in her deposition categorically stated that on the date of incident, when she was standing near primary school, A2 & A3 were holding swords in their hands and A1 & A4 were holding iron pipe. They came near to her and asked about Gopi (her husband/injured). Subsequently, when her husband Gopi came, A1 caught hold of him from behind and A2 assaulted him by sword on his head and thereafter A3 also assaulted him by sword on his head. They also assaulted him on his wrist and elbow. She deposed that A4 assaulted the injured on his leg by iron pipe. At the time of incident, nearby people came to the spot and subsequently, the police also came. Nothing has been elicited by the defence in her cross-examination to counter. 7. PW8- Gopi Chaturvedi (injured) has stated in his deposition that on the date of incident, when he reached to the spot, A2 & A3 assaulted him by a sword on his head. He stated that A1 had caught hold his hand from 5 CRA No.907 of 2016 behind. He stated that due to assault, he sustained injuries on head, hand and elbow. This witness deposed that A4 had assaulted him by an iron pipe. Similarly, nothing has been elicited by the defence in his statement to counter. 8. PW9- Dr. Anandro Rai, who is Adviser Neurosurgeon, in his deposition has categorically stated that when the injured was brought in the Hospital i.e. Balaji Institute of Medical Science, there were injuries over his head and stitches were made. In the CT-scan report, the injuries were simple. On the next day, the injured was discharged from the hospital. 9. PW8- Dr. Devendra Nayak, who is Medial Director of Balaji Hospital, Raipur, has stated in his deposition that when the injured was brought in the hospital, there were injuries over his head and hands. He was semi- conscious. CT-scan and X-ray were done of the injured. There was injury over his head of 7 cm bone deep. He deposed that on the next day, the injured was discharged. 10. Bare perusal of the above statement of the witnesses, it is apparent that on the date of incident, the appellants came to the complainant and asked about her husband, and when her husband came, A1 caught hold him from behind and A2 & A3 assaulted him by a sword by inflicting head injuries. Thereafter, A4 also assaulted him by a iron pipe. Due to the said assault, the injured sustained injuries over his head, hand and leg, which has been corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, this Court affirms the conviction of the appellants as mentioned above. 6 CRA No.907 of 2016 11. So far as 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 09 years ago, the age of the appellants at the relevant time between 20 to 35 years; they have no criminal antecedent; during pendency of this appeal they were on bail and did not misuse the liberty granted to them, and also considering the fact that they have remained in jail for about 2 years 10 months 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 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 i.e. A1 (2 years 8 months 16 days), A2 (2 years 8 months 19 days), A3 (2 years 10 months 16 days) & A4 (2 years 8 months 19 days). From the said fact, it is established that all the appellants have already completed the jail sentence near about three years and minimum sentence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act is three years. However, while maintaining the conviction, as imposed by the trial Court, each of the appellant is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (in total Rs.20,000/-) and the same shall be paid to the injured as compensation. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of all the appellants under Sections 326/34; and while maintaining the conviction of A2 & A3 under Sections 25 & 27(1) of the Arms Act, their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone 7 CRA No.907 of 2016 by him. However, fine amount awarded by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 5000/- against each appellants. If the appellants fail to deposit the said fine amount, they shall suffer additional R.I. for two months. The fine amount already deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted accordingly. It is directed that the fine amount of Rs. 5000/- by each of the appellants, shall be disbursed to the Complainant as compensation i.e. in total Rs.20,000/-. 13. 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. 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 Rahul/Gowri