1 2025:CGHC:512 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1575 of 20 24 • Chandrashekhar Yadav S/o Shri Rajkumar Yadav, aged about 22 years, R/o Village – Gattasilli, Police Station – Dugali Kauhabahra, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Station House officer, Police Station – Dugali, District – Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 03 / 01 /202 5 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, (SC & ST Act), Dhamtari (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case (SC & ST Act) No. 19/2020 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 323 of IPC (to cause injury to Anil Kumar) Simple imprisonment for 3 months. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.01.06 15:05:05 +0530 2 U/s 324 of IPC (to cause injury to Punit Ram Gupta) Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. U/s 326 of IPC (to cause injury to Kamitala Bai) R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for 3 months. U/s 307 of IPC (to cause injury to Chinta Ram Netam) R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for 3 months. U/s 304 Part II of IPC (to cause death of Tulsi Bai @ Binda Gupta) R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for 3 months. (All the sentences were directed to run concurrently). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.05.2020, complainant Punit Ram Gupta (PW-2) lodged a written report in police station Dugali, alleging therein that on 03.05.2020 at about 9:10 am, he along with other neighbours prohibited/restricted the appellant from creating nuisance in the locality. Aggrieved by which, the appellant had blown the sickle over the complainant and his wife, who came to rescue the same. After hearing the noise, Chintaram, Kamitla Bai, Rudrapal Singh, Anil Netam, Omprakash, Sandip and Jaswant were assaulted by the appellant with the help of a sickle. The injured persons anyhow captured the appellant and took him before the police station Dugali, where Crime No. 10/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 323, 458, 307 of IPC was registered against the appellant and after due investigation charge sheet was filed against him. 3 3. So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses and exhibited 78 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.08.2024, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge is illegal and contrary to law which is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the appellant had no previous enmity with the victims, there was a dispute between the appellant and the complainant on the petty issue of restricting him from creating a nuisance, therefore, the appellant in the heat of passion and out of anger said to have assaulted the complainant and other victims by means of sickle due to which deceased Tulsi Bai @ Binda Bai sustained total two injuries on her stomach and chest and the other persons sustained only one simple injury. He also submits that the appellant is a 26-year-old boy suffering jail sentence since 12.05.2020 i.e. more than 4 years and 7 months. The sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 307 and 304 Part II of IPC may be reduced from 5 years, 7 years and 10 years, respectively in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. 4 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Smt. Kamitala (PW-1), Punit Ram Gupta (PW-2), Chintaram Netam (PW-3), Rudrapal Dhruv (PW-4), Shubham Yadav (PW-5), Gopal Chand Kosre (PW-6), Smt. Sewati Gupta (PW-7), Anil Kumar Netam (PW- 8), Dr. Satish Kumar Ukey (PW-9), Vijay Gupta (PW-10), Hariram Mandavi (PW-11), Sanat Sahu (PW-12), Dr. Shrawan Kumar (PW-13), Dr. Smith Kumar (PW-15), Brajraj Singh (PW-17), Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-18), Dr. Vishnu Kumar Gupta (PW-20) and Sarika Vaidh (PW- 21), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences. 9. As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2020 about 4 to 5 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant had no previous enmity with the victims, there was a dispute on a petty issue of restricting the appellant to make nuisance in the locality, due to which in the heat of passion and out of anger the appellant is said to have assaulted the complainant, and other persons by means of sickle in the result the complainant and other persons sustained injuries, further considering that the appellant is aged about 26 years at present, in the interest of justice, in my opinion, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant from R.I. for 5 years to R.I. for 3 years, 7 years to 5 years and 10 years to 7 years for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 307 and 304 Part II of IPC, 5 respectively. However, the fine amount as imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact and the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 323 & 324 of IPC shall remain as it is. 10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. The appellant in jail since 12.05.2020. He shall serve the remaining sentence. The period already undergone by him shall be adjusted in the period of the sentence imposed upon him today. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and to the Superintendent of Jail where he lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu