1 2025:CGHC:41860 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1962 of 2023 Sunil Mishra S/o. Shri Madan Mishra, Aged About 41 Years Occupation - Government Service, (Police), R/o. Daldaliya Para, Village - Ghaghra, P.S. Pasta, Post - Jhalriya, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant) ... Appellant versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Pasta, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Munshi Giri S/o. Bullu Giri Ram, Aged About 50 Years Residents Of Village - Ghaghra, Dudhniyapara, Ps - Pasta, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mahendra Pratap S/o. Judunath, Aged About 40 Years Residents Of Village - Ghaghra, Dudhniyapara, Ps - Pasta, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Indar Giri S/o. Munsi Giri, Aged About 27 Years Residents Of Village - Ghaghra, Dudhniyapara, Ps - Pasta, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Bibi Giri W/o. Munsi Giri, Aged About 48 Years Residents Of Village - Ghaghra, Dudhniyapara, Ps - Pasta, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent(s) For Appellant :Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State :Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Complainant. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent No. 1/State. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 2. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short, ‘CrPC’), challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.08.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 55/2017. The appeal has been preferred for enhancement of conviction and sentence, whereby Respondent No.2, Munshi Giri, has been convicted for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, 3 months and 27 days with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 days. Respondent No. 4, Indar Giri, have been convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and 27 days with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 days. Respondent No. 5, Bibi Giri, have been convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 months and 13 days with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he is directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 days. Respondent No.3, Mahendra Pratap was acquitted by the learned Sessions Court concerned from the charges under Section 307/34 of the IPC. In the instant Case, the accused persons respondents No.2, 4 and 5 have been acquitted from the charges under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and have been convicted under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and they 3 have been sentenced for the period already undergone by them as mentioned above. 3. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 30.06.2017, at about 7–8 AM, complainant Sunil Mishra, resident of village Ghaghra, went to the agricultural land in the name of his mother Malwanti Devi bearing Khasra Nos. 271 and 285, of about 2 acres, for seasonal cultivation with a tractor. He was accompanied by Dhuru Prajapati and Hem Nath Yadav. At that time, the accused Munshi Giri, along with his son Inder Giri, wife Bibi Giri and the village sarpanch Mahendra Pratap (Gond), came together armed with lathi, stick, and axe. The sarpanch Mahendra incited the others, shouting that Sunil Mishra was trying to capture their land, abused him in filthy language, and all the accused collectively assaulted Sunil Mishra/complainant with intent to kill, causing serious injuries to his head, hands, and legs. On seeing the assault, information was given to Sandeep Mishra, brother of the complainant. Sandeep reached the spot with Niyaz Imtiaz and found Sunil injured, and upon seeing them the accused persons fled away. On the basis of Sandeep Mishra’s report, an First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the accused persons (respondents No.2 to 5), and a Dehati Nalishi (village complaint) was also drawn up. The Investigating Officer – Dilbag Singh (PW-14) visited the spot on 30.06.2017 and in accordance with the assistance of witness Thuru, prepared a police spot map (Ex. P-02). On 20.07.2017, Halka Patwari - Vimlesh Singh (PW-7) prepared the patwari spot map (Ex.P-03) in the presence of the witnesses. Injured/complainant Sunil Mishra was referred to District Hospital, 4 Balrampur for medical examination, and the medical report (Ex.P- 14) was filed. On the same day, memorandum statement under Secation 161 of CrPC of the accused persons were recorded (Ex.P- 04, Ex.P-06 and Ex.P-07). From possession of the accused persons, one axe/Tangi (Ex.P-05), one bamboo stick (Ex.P-08), and one wooden club (Ex.P-09) were seized. Blood-stained clothes of the injured – a torn vest, shorts, t-shirt and trousers – were seized as per Seizure Memo (Ex.P-20). The bed-head ticket of the injured/complainant from Ramakrishna Care Hospital, Raipur was also seized as (Ex.P-25). The seized weapons were sent for medical examination, and reports (Ex.P-16 to P-18) were obtained. Since the offence of the accused was found proved during investigation, they were arrested on 30.06.2017 as per arrest memo (Ex.P-10 to P-13), and intimation of their arrest was given to their families as per (Ex.P-23 and P-24). During the course of investigation, statement of witness Imtiaz Ansari (Ex.P-33), Miyaz Ahmad (Ex.P-34), and Sandeep Mishra (Ex.P-1A) were recorded. The seized articles were sent through the Superintendent of Police, Balrampur, to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ambikapur, for chemical examination. The acknowledgement receipt (Ex.P-31) and the chemical analysis report (Ex.P-32) were received. 4. After completion of the investigation, a final report (charge-sheet) was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balrampur. As the case was triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, it was transferred on 28.09.2017 to the District and Sessions Judge, Balrampur–Ramanujganj, from where it was transferred for trial to 5 the Court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj. On 25.11.2017, the Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 294, 506, 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 5. So as to prove the complicity of the accused persons in the crime in question, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 prosecution witnesses and exhibited 34 documents in support of its case. Statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. The accused did not give any defense evidence in their defence. 6. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 09.08.2023 acquitted the respondents No.2, 4 and 5 (Munshi Giri, Indar Giri and Bibi Giri) from the charges under Sections 294, 507 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and convicted them under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC by sentencing them as mentioned in para 2 of this judgment. Furthermore, the trial Court acquitted the respondent No.3, Mahendra Pratap from all the charges, against which this appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC has been preferred by the appellant/complainant before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is against the facts, law and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the learned 6 trial Court has erred in law by acquitting the respondent No.3 Mahendra Pratap from all the charges and while acquitting all the other persons under Section 307/34 of the IPC. It is further submitted that learned trial Court ought to have considered this fact that the PW-8, Dr. A.K. Jaiswal conducted primary treatment in the Community Health Centre, Ramanujganj has found cut injury in the frontal and Parietal part of the head and has also found fracture on the said injuries, both the legs was injured, was fracture, the said doctor has categorically stated that the injuries sustained by the complainant are sufficient for his death. The learned trial court ought to have considered this fact that PW-13, Dr. Pankaj Dhaulia has also found grievous injury sustained by the appellant and he has also stated that the injured was hospitalized for about 1 month and he has sustained a fracture of both Ulna and Tibia Fibula bone and the injuries were grievous in nature. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court committed an error of law while acquitted the accused persons under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. As such, the impugned judgment deserves to be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel has supported the im- pugned judgment and submitted that the learned trial Court, after due appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment, which calls for no inter- ference by this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection. 7 10. Dr. A.K. Jaiswal (PW-08) has stated in his statement that he was posted as a Medical Officer at the Community Health Center, Ramanujganj from March 2014 to December 2016. On 30.06.2017, injured/appellant Sunil Mishra was brought before him for medical examination by a constable of Police Station Pasta. He found incised wounds on the front and back portion of the head caused by a sharp object, with fractures at both injury sites, and both legs were broken. He advised X-ray and referred the patient to Ambikapur. His report is (Ex. P-14), bearing his signature. He opined that the injuries sustained by the injured were sufficient to cause death. He also issued report (Ex.P-15). But in Cross-examination, he has admitted that he had only given initial treatment and then referred the patient, and that no X-ray or CT scan was done. He voluntarily stated that the condition of the injured was serious, hence he referred him. He admitted that he referred the appellant for proper treatment without knowing the exact nature of the injuries. He further admitted that in (Ex.P-14) he had not mentioned that the condition of the injured was serious. He voluntarily stated that he considered the injuries to be grievous because of fractures in the body. He denied the suggestion that fractures cannot be detected without an X-ray, but said it is not possible to know which bone is fractured. He admitted that he had stated about fracture of both legs of the injured only on the basis of assumption without X-ray. He also admitted that he had not mentioned how many hours before the incident the injuries were caused. He further admitted that he described the injuries as “sufficient to cause death” only on the 8 basis of preliminary examination. He also admitted that the query report (Ex.P-15) was prepared on the very day of the examination. 11. The witness admitted that the injured/appellant was a bodyguard, and therefore many officers and leaders had gathered for his treatment. He voluntarily stated that a large crowd had assembled that day. He admitted that the officers and leaders told him to give quick primary treatment and refer the injured/appellant immediately. He admitted that due to the pressure from officers and leaders, he referred the injured without conducting X-ray and without knowing the exact nature of the injuries. He admitted that without X-ray and CT scan reports, it cannot be said whether the injuries were sufficient to cause death. 12. Dr. Pankaj Dhawaliya (PW-13), Orthopedic Specialist, Ramakrishna Care Hospital, stated that injured Sunil Mishra was admitted in Ramakrishna Hospital from 30.06.2017 to 07.07.2017 for treatment. The ulna bones of both hands and the tibia and fibula bones of both legs were fractured, and these injuries were grievous in nature, caused by hard and blunt objects. The injury report given by the hospital is (Ex.D-01). In cross-examination, he admitted that the injuries of the injured were curable with treatment. In the FIR (Ex. P-21), the date of incident is mentioned as 30.06.2017. On the same day, Dr. A.K. Jaiswal (PW-08) examined the injured and found injuries on his body, and during preliminary treatment described them as grievous. Although the defence argued that the doctor considered the injuries grievous without an X-ray report, the doctor denied that his opinion was only based on assumption. Since 9 doctors regularly examine injuries and their nature, they are able to assess which injuries are grievous. Thus, this defence ground is not convincing. Furthermore, Dr. Pankaj Dhawaliya (PW-13) confirmed that the injuries were grievous due to fractures. Hence, it is proved that on the date of the incident, Sunil Mishra/appellant had sustained grievous injuries on his body. Dr. A.K. Jaiswal (PW-08) further stated that the tibia and fibula bone of the right leg and the tibia bone of the left leg of the injured were fractured, and he admitted that such injuries were not sufficient to cause death. Thus, the doctor did not consider the injuries of the appellant as sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 13. On the basis of medical evidence, it is not proved that the injuries of the injured were sufficient to cause death. The evidence shows that the dispute between the complainant and the accused was only regarding land. Earlier also, on 21.10.2017, complainant/appellant had lodged a report against accused Munshi Giri and B.B. Giri under Sections 294, 323, 506, 427, and 34 IPC. Thus, even earlier there had been a dispute over work on the same land. In that incident, it was stated that accused Munshi Giri assaulted with the blunt side of a tangi, causing only simple injuries. If the accused had the intention to kill, they could have attempted to kill the complainant earlier too. In the present case, only grievous injuries were caused to the complainant but they are not sufficient to cause death as they are curable after the treatment, hence, the circumstances are different. 10 14. Thus, from the circumstances of the case, it is clear that the accused did not intend to kill the complainant/appellant. The dispute arose only due to ploughing of the land, and in order to stop that work, the quarrel occurred and the complainant was assaulted. Therefore, the provisions of Section 307 of the IPC (Attempt to Murder) are not attracted against the accused Munshi Giri, Inder Giri, and B.B. Giri. 15. For an offence under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the act was done with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if death had been caused, the act would amount to murder. Mere causing of injuries with a dangerous weapon is not sufficient unless the intention to kill or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death is proved. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held in the matter of State of M.P. v. Kanha @ Omprakash, (2023) 6 SCC 65 that the intention to kill is the crux for Section 307 IPC to held that the nature of the weapon, the part of the body targeted, and the severity of injuries are relevant considerations. Further in the matter of Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that mere grievous injury is not sufficient unless accompanied by an intention to cause death and lastly in the matter of Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where injuries are not on vital parts and are not declared dangerous to life, Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained. 11 17. Applying the aforesaid principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases (supra), in the present case, the injuries were on a non-vital part of the body, the doctor did not term them dangerous to life, and there is no evidence of intention to kill. Hence, the trial Court rightly held that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out, against the respondents No.2, 4 and 5. 18. Hemanath Yadav (PW-03), whom the injured/appellant stated that he had accompanied him for ploughing the field, clearly deposed that accused Mahendra/respondent No.3 was present with him at the place of occurrence. However, Gunjan Kumar (PW-06) stated that when they had gone for ploughing, accused Mahendra/respondent No.3 was not present there. Thus, on the basis of the above evidence, it appears that respondent No.3, Mahendra Singh had no land-related dispute with the injured. This is also reflected in the Patwari Spot Map (Ex.P-03), which shows that Mahendra had no possession over the disputed land, and that his house is situated 431 meters away from the disputed site. Therefore, it is evident that respondent No.3 had no dispute regarding the said land, and consequently, there was no reason for him to join the other accused persons in assaulting the injured. In such circumstances, the involvement of respondent No.3 in this incident is not established. 19. In view of the same, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused Mahendra Pratap (Respondent No.3) from charges under Section 12 294, 506 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, as he had already suffered agony of jail sentence of about 08 months and 2 days. 20. Over and above, to prove the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as the trial Court has imposed the same against the respondents No.2, 4 and 5, this Court also finds it ap- propriate to peruse Section 325 of the IPC, which reads as under: “325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.— Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” As the respondents No.2, 4 and 5 are said to have collectively assaulted the injured/appellant with hard and blunt object, and caused him grievous injuries as per the medical reports, therefore, the role attributed to respondents No.2, 4 and 5 was confined to the assaults which caused grievous injuries to the injured, which is adequately covered under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and they have already undergone about 3 years 3 months and 27 days, 9 months and 27 days, and 5 months and 13 days of jail sentence, respectively, and the trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced them to the period already undergone for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. 21. The sentence imposed by the learned trial Court warrants no interference. While determining sentence, the Court must consider the nature of the injuries, the weapon used, the circumstances of the occurrence, and the intention of the accused/respondents. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441 has held that “sentencing should reflect 13 proportionality between the crime and the punishment, and the mitigating and aggravating circumstances must be duly considered and similarly, in Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 12 SCC 532, it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that undue leniency as well as undue harshness should be avoided, and punishment should be just, fair, and proportionate. 23. In the present case, considering that the accused/respondents have already undergone substantial incarceration, the incident is of 2017. The offence does not exhibit extreme brutality or premeditation, the sentence imposed by the trial Court strikes the correct balance between deterrence and reformative justice. There is no reason to enhance the sentence as prayed by the appellant/complainant. 24. Having considered the entire evidence on record and the settled legal position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court. The findings are supported by law and facts. 25. The appeal preferred by the appellant/complainant lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court are affirmed. 26. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar