1 CRA No. 675 of 2016 2025:CGHC:29512 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 675 of 2016 1 Naresh Bhimnani @ Kallu S/o Ramesh Bhimnani Aged About 28 Years R/o Lodhi Para, Prem Nagar, Near Murra Bhatti Chakradhari Rikshaw Garage, P.S. Gudhiyari, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S. Gudhiyari, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri on behalf of Shri Pawan Kesharwani , Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 01/07/2025 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 06.05.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 220/ 2015 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur C.G, whereby the JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.03 10:31:47 +0530 2 CRA No. 675 of 2016 appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of the IPC R.I. for 5 years & fine of Rs. 3,000/- to further undergo R.I. for 3 months in case of non-payment of fine. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15/07/2015 in the afternoon the victim was going from his home to Friday market driving his motor cycle himself, at about 14:45 the accused Naresh was standing on the way near Sonkar grocery shop before Janghel Health Club and he stopped the victim by calling out and said out of grudge, you people did not listen to me and insult me, you are the biggest leader, today I will murder you, I will not leave you alive, saying this with the intention of killing he hit the victim in the stomach with a knife that he had hidden with him, while being injured the victim fell down along with the motor cycle and was hit on the left thigh, again he was hit with knife below the waist and caused injury. 3. During investigation, Spot map was prepared. Statement of the Victim was recorded. Statements of witnesses were also recorded. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. 4. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied 3 CRA No. 675 of 2016 committing the crime and demanded trial. 5. 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. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 06.05.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would further submit that the complainant had previous animosity with the appellant and the conviction against the appellant is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that while passing the impugned judgment the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He further prayed that the appellant has already undergone half of the jail sentence i.e. 2 years 3 months and the appeal be partly allowed by reducing the sentence already undergone by the appellant. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the 4 CRA No. 675 of 2016 conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. 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. 10. The victim (PW1) himself deposed that the accused, while abusing him in the name of mother and sister regarding a dispute with him in the Dargah meeting, hit him in the stomach with a knife which the accused was carrying. Due to the attack by the accused, he got a wound on the thigh of his left leg and the second wound was on the waist above the hip, as a result of which a lot of blood was oozing and he cried for his rescue upon which Kamal Shah, Asim Mandal came to the scene of the incident. After the incident his brother Girdhari Sahu and his brother-in-law Arun Sahu also came to the scene of the incident. The victim told them about the incident. His brother and brother- in-law took him to Ramkrishna Care Hospital for treatment. 11. Uttam Kumar Sahu (PW2) is the memorandum and seizure witness in front of whom the the police seized the knife, at the instance of accused by which he caused injury to the victim i.e. Ex. P-4 memorandum and Ex. P-5 Seizure memo. 12. Dr. Pankaj Dabliya (PW-12) deposed in his statement that he is posted as orthopedic specialist in Ram Krishna Hospital and he has examined the victim and found a cut wound in left thigh and 5 CRA No. 675 of 2016 lower tier region of the victim and further stated that the victim was in hypovolemic shock. The medical report given by him is Ex.P.16. 13. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record it is evident that the appellant caused injuries to the victim with sharp object and he was discharged from the hospital after 3 days. The MLC report is EX-P16. The learned trial Court after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 14. So far as, the sentence part is concerned, considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, looking to the injury sustained by injured, as per MLC, the fact that the incident took place around 10 years ago, the age of the appellant at the relevant time i.e. 28 years; during pendency of this appeal the appellant was on bail since 2018; and did not misuse the liberty granted to him and keeping in view the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478, 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. 6 CRA No. 675 of 2016 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. His convicted under section 307 of the IPC and the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 16. 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. 17. 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 Jyoti