1 / 9 CRA No. 1828 of 2017 2025:CGHC:41535 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1828 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Narayanpur District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Ledan Ram S/o S/o Aitwa Ram Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Kaliba, Police Station Narayanpur Distt. Jashpur , Chhattisgarh 2 - Kishunram S/o Kedan Ram Routiya Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Kaliba, Police Station Narayanpur Distt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh 3 - Shankar Ram S/o Kishunram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kaliba, Police Station Narayanpur Distt. Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. A. G. For Respondents : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 18/08/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.08.25 18:52:05 +0530 2 / 9 CRA No. 1828 of 2017 accused/respondents. 2. By the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.07.2017 passed in Special S. T. No. 14/2016 by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Jashpur, C.G., whereby the accused/ respondents have been convicted under Sections 324/34, 324, 323/34 and 323 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two months, two months, one month and one month respectively with default stipulation. 3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant Hubeshwar and his brother Sudheshwar Nagvanshi are residents of village Kaliba and are farmers. There is about 10-12 decimals of government land next to their land which they have occupied for three years and were farming on it. On 20/06/2016 at about 6:00 am, the complainant went with his brother, sister-in-law Sumitra Bai, Sanjeev Ram and Balkuvar Ram to plough the field. His elder brother and son-in-law Rajkumar alias Kandra were also with him. He and his two nephews were ploughing the field and his elder brother was digging the soil and his sister-in-law was pulling out grass. At around 8 o'clock, one Kishun Ram Rautia, Shankar Rautia and Ledan Rautia came there, holding bows and arrows in their hands. Kishun Ram was also holding a gun, an air gun with a wooden weight and Ledan Ram was holding an iron rod. As soon as the accused came near their field, they started abusing, you are ploughing the land that is under our possession, they attacked with arrows with the intention of killing. Kishun's arrow hit his right ear. When they started running to save themselves, the complainant fell down. Kishun hit him on the forehead 3 / 9 CRA No. 1828 of 2017 with the dice of the tangi that he was holding in his hand and Ledan Ram hit his sister-in-law Sumitra in the stomach with a bow. Then all of them started running. Kishun Ram's gun fell down and two arrows of the accused also fell on the spot which Sanjiv Ram picked up and ran towards the house. They attacked and beat them up, causing injuries to the complainant and injured them. Knowing that the complainant belong to the tribal community, the accused beat them up. The complainant, along with other injured, went to Narayanpur Police Station on 20/06/2016 and filed a report of the incident. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant Hubeshwar, Narayanpur Police Station registered the First Information Report (Ex.P/40) and took up the investigation of the crime. 4. During the investigation, Spot Map was got prepared. The Accused were apprehended and statements of the witnesses including the victim were recorded by the police as well as before the Judicial Magistrate. Upon completion thereof, charge-sheet was submitted accordingly. After framing the charges against the accused/respondents, the charges were read out and explained to them, they denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses in its support. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence 4 / 9 CRA No. 1828 of 2017 available on record, by its judgment dated 19/07/2017 convicted and sentenced the accused persons as mentioned in paragraph two of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State/ appellant would submit that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused/ respondents from the charges under relevant provisions of the IPC, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the Arms Act, despite overwhelming evidence placed on record during trial. The acquittal under Sections 294, 307 (twice), 307/34 (twice) IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 25 of the Arms Act is bad in law and against the weight of evidence. The trial court has not appreciated the material facts and legal positions in their proper perspective. The impugned judgment suffers from serious legal and factual infirmities, and the respondents have not presented any mitigating circumstances that would justify the leniency shown by the learned trial Court. He further submits that inadequate punishment results in gross injustice to the victim and society at large. Hence he prays to convict the accused/ respondents under the relevant sections of IPC, SC/ST Act, and the Arms Act by enhancing the sentence appropriately in the interest of justice. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the accused/ respondents, per contra, would oppose the submissions made by the counsel for the State and further submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court is just and proper and warrants no interference of this court. 5 / 9 CRA No. 1828 of 2017 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 10. Dealing with the incident, the question would arise before this Court to consider the actual facts and circumstances of the case. 11. PW/4- complainant Hubeshwar Nagwanshi examined before the learned trial Court, who stated in his statement that he knows the accused Ledan Ram, Kishun Ram and Shankar Ram, he also knows the injured Sudheshwar Ram, Sumitra Bai, Sanjeev Kumar. He stated that it was the month of June 2016, on the date of incident, he alongwith Sudheshwar, Sumitra Bai, Sanjeev Kumar and Balkumar went to plough the land near Jhiki Nala at 8 am. They were ploughing the land near Jhiki Nala when the accused Ledan, Kishun Ram and Shankar came there and started shooting arrows at them. Seeing the accused shooting arrows, they left the plough and started running to save themselves. While running to save themselves, he fell into the drain. The accused who were running behind them saw him fallen and the accused Kishun Ram raised the tangia to hit him with the tangia. Kishun Ram hit him with the tangia near the thumb of his left hand, which caused an injury in his thumb. He further stated that Kishun Ram also shot an arrow at him which injured him near the elbow of his right hand and another arrow hit him near the elbow of his left hand and the upper surface of his right palm was also injured by the arrow. He stated that the accused Ledan Ram hit his brother Sudheshwar 6 / 9 CRA No. 1828 of 2017 on the forehead with a tangi due to which he got injured on the forehead. Thereafter they somehow ran towards their house to save themselves. After reaching home, he alongwith Sudheshwar, Sanjeev, Balkumar and Sumitra went to Narayanpur police station to lodge a report. He lodged the report of the incident at Narayanpur police station. He stated that he usually signs but while lodging the report, he was unable to write due to injury in his right hand and being in a wounded state, he put his thumb impression. The police sent him, Sudheshwar and Sumitra to Kunkuri hospital. During the said incident, accused Shankar Ram had hit Sumitra in the stomach with a bow, due to which she was injured. Sudheshwar Ram (PW/5) and Sumitra Bai (PW/9) and other prosecution witnesses also corroborated the above facts and the ordeal of the incident in its true perspective. 12. Bare perusal of the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, this Court has found that there is no strong motive to commit the offence rather it reflects from the record that there is civil dispute regarding some piece of land. The land in dispute is admittedly government land, and both parties appear to claim possession to use or cultivate the same. The element of sudden provocation or land dispute reduces the probability of a premeditated or intentional homicidal assault. 13. This Court has examined the entire record, including the depositions of witnesses, the medical evidence, the FIR, and the recovered weapons. The weighing allegation of the prosecution is that the accused came armed with lethal weapons and made a concerted attack with the 7 / 9 CRA No. 1828 of 2017 intention to kill. However, several serious inconsistencies and infirmities exist in the prosecution case which prevent this Court from accepting the version in its entirety or enhancing the sentence based on the assumption of intent to commit murder. 14. Though, the FIR was lodged on the same day, there is no immediate corroborative medical evidence of grievous injury sufficient to suggest a homicidal intent. The injury to the complainant’s ear, and the alleged hit on the forehead with a tangi, are described in a vague manner without corresponding medical certificates clearly linking the nature of the injury with a dangerous weapon or life-threatening harm. 15. Moreover, it is not the prosecution’s case that the accused had any strong prior enmity or motive to kill the complainant. At this stage, in the opinion of this Court, it appears that the present case is a sudden provocation and the offence is being done in a heat of passion, it was a confrontation arising from a local land dispute. 16. Applicability of Section 307 IPC : The essential ingredient of Section 307 IPC is the intention or knowledge to commit murder. This must be evident from the nature of weapon used, the part of the body targeted, and the manner of assault. In the present case, the alleged use of a bow and arrow and an air gun (not a lethal firearm), coupled with the minor nature of injuries and the absence of fatal blows, does not establish the requisite mens rea for attempt to murder. Furthermore, there is no forensic evidence has been placed to show that any of the arrows or the air gun caused grievous injuries. The seizure of an “air gun with wooden 8 / 9 CRA No. 1828 of 2017 weight” is, at best, suggestive of intimidation, not an overt act of attempted murder. 17. As far as the charges levelled under the SC/ST Act are concerned, the prosecution has not led any cogent evidence to show that the assault was committed or any abusive language used on account of the complainant’s caste identity. The land dispute appears to be the dominant reason behind the confrontation, and mere knowledge of caste, absent intent to humiliate or attack based on caste, does not satisfy the requirements of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 18. Criminal jurisprudence requires that benefit of doubt must go to the accused. While the incident may have occurred as alleged in part, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the intent required for conviction under Sections 307 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court appear to be based on proper appreciation of evidence, and there is no material irregularity, illegality and compelling reason to interfere or enhance the sentence imposed against the accused/ respondents. 19. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon cumulative analysis of the evidence available on record, this Court comes to the conclusion that the learned Special Judge while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has rightly appreciated the proper facts and the evidence in its entirety, therefore, the same is affirmed. 20. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal filed by the State for 9 / 9 CRA No. 1828 of 2017 enhancement of sentence against the accused/respondents lacks merit, is hereby dismissed. 21. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar/ Gowri