1 2025:CGHC:2768 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1431 of 2022 Dhanpat Lal alias Babblu Panika S/o Ramadhar Panika, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Arjhula, Police Station, Police Station Budhar, District- Shahdol, (C.G.) ... Appellant (In Jail) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Janakpur, District Koriya, (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 16.01.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 20.07.2022 passed by the First Additional Session Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 96/2021, whereby the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- 2 Conviction Sentence U/S 307 of IPC R.I. for 05 years with a fine amount of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month. 2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that on 07.04.2021, Tarawati (PW-04) has lodged the complaint in the police station Janakpur alleging that the marriage of her younger daughter was solemnized 3-4 years back with the appellant namely Dhanpatlal alias Bablu Panika and it was a love marriage. The incident took place on the night of 06.04.2021 at around 10:30 pm when her daughter was sleeping at the courtyard of her house and her son- in-law/appellant was sleeping inside the room with his daughter and after some time, she noticed her daughter Roshni Maurya was weeping and then she saw her daughter’s neck was slit and blood was gushing forth. Upon hearing her yelling, other people from the village also gathered at the spot and her son-in-law/appellant had locked himself in his room from inside. Thereafter, her weeping daughter told her mother that her son-in-law has assaulted her by making a cut on her neck from vegetable knife as she refused his decision of taking her to in-laws house. Upon the aforesaid complaint, the F.I.R. was lodged with Crime No. 38/2021 under Section 307 of the IPC. The police started investigating the matter after lodging of the F.I.R. 3. During the investigation, injured Roshni Maurya was taken for medical treatment in Community Health Centre, Janakpur and thereafter the spot map of the place of the incident was prepared and the weapon was seized on disclosure being made by the accused/appellant and subsequently, the appellant was taken into custody and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet 3 was filed against the accused/appellant before the concerned jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the Court of learned First Additional Session Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) and the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 96/2021, the accused person/appellant was put to trial for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC to which the accused/appellant abjured his guilt and claimed for trial. 4. So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded his ingenuousness and false entailment in the case. 5. Learned trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the inaugural paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The motive and intention which is the key ingredients to prove an offence under Section 307 of the IPC has not been proved. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no direct evidence against the appellant. The only eye witnesses of the incident is the injured Roshni Maurya, who was having enmity and dispute with her husband/appellant and, therefore, she has wrongly implicated him in the instant crime. The other witnesses are circumstantial witness, who had not seen the incident and there are major contradictions and omissions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. So, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 4 Alternatively, he submits that injured Roshni Maurya is wife of the appellant and if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2021, this appeal is pending since 2022. During trial and pendency of this appeal the appellant has remained in jail for 03 years, 09 months and 10 days and as per the conviction imposed by the learned trial Court, the appellant has already undergone 3/4th of the said conviction, so in the interest of justice the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 307 of IPC. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court and this appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court has framed charges under Section 307 of IPC. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence convicted the appellant under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him for 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine amount of Rs. 200/-. 10. Complainant Roshni Maurya (PW-10) stated that the accused is 5 her husband and on the date of incident, she was sleeping in her courtyard and at that time, the accused assaulted her with vegetable knife on her neck and when she tried to resist him, she got injured on her left hand’s finger too. It is noted by the learned trial Court that injury of cut mark was clearly visible on the neck of the witness. 11. S.I. Vivek Khalkho (PW-09) stated that he lodged F.I.R vide Ex. P/10 under Section 307 of IPC and admitted his signature on A to A part and he further stated that Roshni Maurya was sent for medical examination and he wrote application to the Community Health Centre, Janakpur vide Ex. P/6A. 12. Dr. Kripashankar Painkra (PW-08) examined the injured Roshni Maurya and found one incised wound on her neck and one incised wound on right hand's finger and he opined that the injury No. 1 is grievous in nature and is dangerous to her life and gave her medical report vide Ex. P/06. He denied this suggestion in cross- examination that the injury was not grievous. The other witnesses namely Rajendra (PW-01), Sheshmann (PW-02) have not supported the prosecution case. Tarawati (PW-03), Matku (PW- 02), Mohit (PW-05) have stated that they saw cut mark injury on her neck and blood was gushing forth from it. The learned trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and finds that statement of the complainant Roshni Maurya (PW-10) is supported by the medical evidence and she remained firm in her cross-examination. It is clear that the appellant injured his wife on vital part of her body i.e., (neck). As such, the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 307 of IPC. In view of the aforesaid evidence, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in these findings recorded by the learned trial Court, as such the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is affirmed. 6 13. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place on 06.04.2021, the accused is remaining in jail since 07.04.2021 to till date i.e., for about 03 years, 09 months and 10 days and this appeal is pending since 2022, he has no criminal antecedent, he is entitled for set off of his detention as her already served 3/4th of his conviction period, as such his sentence under the aforesaid section is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence imposed by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 15. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. 16. 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 Uttej