1 2025:CGHC:12301 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1777 of 2024 1 - Krishna Sahu S/o Samodhi Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Nava- gaon Temri, P.S. - City Kotwali, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - City Kotwali, Mungeli, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 10/03/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.09.2024 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 06/2023, whereby the appellant has been con- victed and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sec- tions Sentenced to 294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 S.I. for 3 months 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 S.I. for 06-06 months 506 Part-II of the In- S.I. for 02 years Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.03.27 10:55:30 +0530 2 dian Penal Code, 1860 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 S.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for one month All the sentences will run concurrently 2. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal are that on 29.10.2022, the offence took place on account of hot altercation with respect to use of Government Land situated in front of the farming land of the victims. The present appellant was temporarily using the said land for dumping his agriculture produce, whereas, victims, whose fame is adjacent to the government land, were restraining him from using the land. The appellant started using abusive languages and assaulted Biram Bai on her leg with the help of stick and also assaulted Anita Sahu, in between, Jalesh Sahu intervened between them who also sustained injury over his head. The matter was reported to the Police in the Police Station Mungeli by the complaints which led to registration of FIR bearing crime No. 619/2022. After completing the investigation related procedural formalities, the charge- sheet was filed by the Police under Section 307, 294 and 506-II (3 times) of IPC . 3. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. Defence however has examined no witnesses in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record including the evidence of the witnesses, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in S.T. No. 06/2023 has convicted and sentenced the 3 accused/appellant as described in paragraph No. 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that presently the appellant is aged about 63 years old. Further, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case under Section 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submits that as there was no intention on the part of the accused/appellant to cause injury to the victim, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and at the most act of the accused/appellant may fall either under Section 325 or 326 IPC. He submits that seizure witnesses of alleged weapon used, have not supported the case of prosecution, therefore, it becomes doubtful and the appellants may be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. Ultimately, he submits that in the event the conviction of the appellant is upheld, looking to the evidence, injury sustained and the overt act, the sentence which has been awarded appears to be irrational and requires reduction. Therefore, the sentence awarded may be reduced to period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount and awarding compensation to the injured. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sivamani and Anr. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police in CRA No. 3619 of 2023. 6. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that taking into consideration the statements of the injured (PW-5) and Dr. J.P. Kaushik (PW-13) which gets corroboration from the testimony of other independent witnesses, the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 307, 294, 323 and 506-II IPC being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record are fully justified and do not call for any interference in this appeal. 4 7. Heard counsel for the parties at length and went through the evidence on record with utmost care and caution. 8. From the evidence of Vishnu Sahu (PW-2) it is apparent that some quarrel took place between the victim and appellant and they started abusing each other, after which Krishna hit Biram on the knee with a bamboo stick, when Krishna was hitting Biram, Injured Jalesh came to intervene, the stick was hit on jalesh on his head. 9. Dr. Abhishek Kumar Shah (PW-11) has admitted in his cross-examination that the victim Jalesh Sahu had suffered injuries inside his head in an accident seven to eight years ago. Due to such accident, parietal bone was removed from his skull, also he admitted that the clotting of blood could be a result of earlier occurred accident. 10. Dr. J.P. Kaushik (PW-13) who medically examined the victim has stated that he found injury on parietal bond in the size of 2x0.5x0.5 cm deep, a lacerated wound on the left knee in the size of 0.5x0.5x0.5, a wound on the right wrist in the size of 1x0.5x0.5 cm. The injury sustained by the injured was grievous in nature. 11.Thus from the evidence of the Witness (PW-5) Dr. Abhishek Kumar Shah (PW-11) and Dr. J.P. Kaushik (PW-13), it is crystal clear that it is the accused/appellant who hit to the victim with an bamboo stick, as a result of which injured suffered injury on the parietal bond and other grievous injuries. According the statement of the Doctor, the injury sustained by the injured was grievous in nature. 12. Now, the question is, whether the trial Court is justified inconvicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC? 13. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 307 of the IPC which states as under: - 5 “307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life-convicts.—When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.” 14.The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC are: (i) that the death of a human being was attempted; (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as: (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufÏcient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excused for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. 15.Section 307 and 308, I.P.C. deals with the offences of attempt to murder and attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Attempt to commit culpable homicide is an offence punishable with imprisonment, and but for its being expressly made an offence under Section 308, it would fall under Section 511. A person commits 6 the offence of attempt to commit a particular offence, when he intends to commit that offence and with that intention does any act towards the commission of that offence. This principle will apply equally to all acts constituting the offence of attempting to commit an offence, whether the particular attempt falls under the general Section 511 or under any special provision by reason of a different punishment being expressly provided for such attempt. A person commits the offence under Section 308 when he has that intention to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and in pursuance of that intention does any act towards the commission of that offence, whether the act is the penultimate act or not. A perusal of the provision contained in Section 307 and Section 308, IPC shows that they make provision for punishment of an attempt to commit certain offence and that while Section 307, IPC is linked with the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 308, IPC is linked with the offence of culpable homicide punishable under Section 304, Part-I, IPC, Section 308 covers a case where the act has not resulted in death but if it resulted in death, the offence would have amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, meaning thereby, the provision contained in Section 308 IPC postulates doing an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An attempt of that nature need not result in hurt. It is attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable under Section 308, IPC. Further if an accused does not intend to cause death or any bodily injury, which he knows to be likely to cause death or even 7 to cause such bodily injury as sufÏcient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death, Section 308, IPC would apply, if death in fact does not result. 16.It is evident from the records that on spur of moment, the appellant has caused injury to the victim(Jalesh Sahu when he was interevening) on the front parietal region with bamboo stick and the involvement of the appellant in this offence, was only to hit single blow with the stick. The appellant did the aforesaid act for which he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, he shall be guilty of committing an act punishable under Section 308 of IPC. The age of the appellant at present is 63 years. Hence the conviction of the appellant under Section 307/34 of the IPC can be altered/converted to Section 308 of the IPC. 17.Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is set aside, however, he is convicted under Section 308 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 18.So far as sentence under Section 506-II of IPC is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of 2 years imprisonment imposed by the trial Court appears to excessively on the higher side and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence u/s 506-II of IPC imposed on him is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. Both the sentence will run concurrently. The conviction under Sections 294, and 323 of IPC are hereby maintained. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 19.The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modified 8 above. 20.The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated here-in- above. 21. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti