1 2025:CGHC:26977 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1374 of 2019 Harishchand Markam S/o Dashrath Markam Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sheetali Plotpara, Police Station And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Kumar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, PL Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 23/06/2025 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 26/08/2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 87/2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, with default stipulation. In this case, four persons were tried. Out of them, accused Ramiram Markam and Bharat Markam have been acquitted, whereas in respect of accused-Dashrath Markam, only fine amount of Rs.5000/- was imposed RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.06.24 10:30:41 +0530 2 for offence under Section 324 r/w 109 of IPC. The present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated in para 1 of this judgment. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on the date of incident i.e. 06/08/16, the injured/Complainant- Tularam (henceforth ‘the Complainant’) was grazing his buffaloes in his field, at that time he saw that co-accused Harishchand Markam was cutting the fence of his field. The Complainant and co-accused are step brothers. The Complainant asked the co-accused to stop cutting the fence of his land and thereafter, a verbal alteration took place between the parties and other co-accused persons namely Dashrath, Bharat and Rami instigated the appellant/accused to beat the complainant. Subsequently, the appellant assaulted the injured with battle axe on left shoulder and back side, due to which he fell down on the spot. Subsequently, the report was lodged and investigation was carried on. The appellant was arrested and a charge-sheet was filed against him. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 26/08/2019 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. 3 Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There are material contradiction in the statements of the witnesses. The testimony of PW6 (Smt. Lacchandai) is contrary to PW-6 (Smt. Itwari). The witnesses of seizure and memorandum have been declared hostile. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. Alternatively, he submits that the accused was 26 years of age at the time of incident, which took place in 2016. He would submit that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and he is on bail and never misused the liberty granted by this Court. Thus, the appellant may be extended the Probation of Offenders Act. 6. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. There is clear evidence regarding age of the prosecutrix, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. 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. 8. The Complainant/Victim- Tularam has been examined as PW1. He stated that the appellant is his brother. During the life time of their father, the land was partitioned between the siblings. On the date of incident, when he was doing agricultural work along with his wife and 4 grazing the buffaloes at that time, the accused persons namely Dashrath Markam and Bharat Markam asked the appellant- Harish to assault the Deceased. Thereafter, the appellant attacked the Victim with Tangiya as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was admitted in the hospital for a period of 15 days. 9. Dr. Ravi Awasthi has been examined as PW9. He conducted the medical examination on the body of the injured and found that three injuries in the size of 5 X 1 X 3 cm. He stated that the injuries may be caused with the Tangiya. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Victim, I am of the opinion that the trial Court did not commit any illegality in convicting the appellant under Section 324 of the IPC. 11. So far as, the 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 appellant at the relevant time i.e. 26 years; he has no criminal antecedent; during pendency of this appeal the appellant was on bail since 2019; and did not misuse the liberty granted to him, and also considering the fact that both the appellant and the complainant/injured are brother and keeping in view the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478 wherein considering the fact that fine amount has been deposited and paid to the victim as also the long passage of time, the accused was 5 sentenced to the period already undergone, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellant back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served, if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 125 days and the fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the Trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- with default sentence and out of the said amount, Rs. 5000/- is directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine sentence of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-. If the appellant fails to deposit the said fine amount, he shall suffer additional R.I. for two months. The fine amount already deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted accordingly. Out of the said amount, Rs. 5,000/- shall be payable to the complainant as compensation. 13. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His 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