1 2025:CGHC:7853 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 146 of 2025 1 - Virendra Singh Khairwar, S/o Khiju Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village- Pindra, Police Station Ranka, District Gadhwa, Jharkhand. Current Resident- Village Tetardih, Police Station- Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Utkal Pradhan, Advocate. For the State : Shri G.L. Uike, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 13/02/2025 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 415 (2) of the BNSS against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11/12/2024 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Session Case No.61/2021 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo the appellant for seven years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine further undergo one month RI. NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.03.24 11:22:09 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant Vipat Gupta (PW-2) had lodged a written report in Balrampur police station that on 18.02.2021 at 5.30 a.m., while bringing wood from his farm Tetardih, his nephew Kamlesh Gupta was hit in the neck by Virendra Singh Khairwar with a tangi in his hand with the intention of killing him due to old enmity. When Virendra Singh Khairwar used the tangi for the second time, Dhanesh Singh, Dushyant Kumar and Rajesh Singh caught him, otherwise Virendra would have killed Kamlesh. Due to serious injury in the neck of Kamlesh Gupta, he was taken to Balrampur District Hospital, from where he was taken to Ambikapur Hospital. 3. Based upon written information of the informant, Inspector Rajesh Khalkho (PW-9) registered the First Information Report (Ex. P-2). After which, site map (Ex.P-7) was prepared. A written complaint (Ex. P-10) was issued to the Executive Magistrate Balrampur for providing the Patwari map of the incident site. On receiving the said complaint, Patwari Narayan Singh (PW-5) also prepared a map of the site (Ex. P- 3) and Panchnama (Ex. P-4). Inspector Rajesh Khalkho (PW-9) sent a written complaint (Ex.P-12) for providing a disclosure report of the injuries on the body of the injured Kamlesh Gupta. On which, Dr. Ravi Lincoln Bada (PW-10) examined the injured and gave the examination report (Ex.P-16) and disclosure report (Ex.P-12A). When Head Constable Krishna Prasad Gupta (PW-11) brought and presented the bed head ticket (Ex.P-17) of Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, the same was seized by Investigating Officer Rajesh Khalkho as per seizure memo (Ex. P-11). 4. During course of investigation, the accused disclosure statement was 3 prepared and tangi was seized, seizure memo Ex.P-6 was prepared. When Amresh Gupta brought and presented the clothes and muffler of the injured, the seizure memo was seized as per Ex.P-5. Complaint Ex.P-13 was sent for testing the seized tangi and providing the report. On receipt of the said complaint, Dr. Ravi Lincoln Bada (PW-10) tested the tangi and gave the query report Ex. P-13A. Complaint Ex.P-14 was given for testing the seized items and providing the report, the deposit receipt of which is Ex. P-15 and the received FSL report. 5. After finding sufficient evidence of crime against the accused, he was arrested as per arrest sheet Ex.P-8. After investigation, a charge-sheet was presented against the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balrampur, Ramanujganj, District-Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) from where the case has committed for trial in the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj in Criminal Case No.141/2021. During trial, the prosecution has produced as many as 11 witnesses for supporting of the case of the prosecution. The appellant has denied the charge leveled against him under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on the plea of innocence and he has not produced any witness in his defense. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and framing issues, vide its impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2024 passed in Sessions Case No.61/2021 convicted the appellant and sentence as mentioned above, which is not just and proper in the eye of law, hence this appeal. 6. Counsel for the appellant argued that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out according to 4 the evidence recorded before it, learned trial Court has failed to see that all the witnesses examined in the case are interested witnesses and no one support the prosecution story, thus, the conviction and sentences of the appellants are bad in eyes of law. Hence, appellants may be acquitted of the aforesaid charges. 7. Counsel for the State argued that the conviction and sentences of the appellant is based on clinching evidence. The conviction and sentences of the appellant do not call for any interference by this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court. 9. Kamlesh Gupta (PW-1) has clearly stated in his statement that the accused had attacked him with a tangi on his neck and then had also hit him on the back side of the body with the tangi, but Dhanesh Singh and Dushyant Singh had intervened. Eyewitnesses of the incident are Dhanesh Kumar Singh (PW-3) and Dushyant Kumar Singh (PW-4) who were present at the time of the incident and tried to intervene. Dhanesh Kumar Singh (PW-3) has stated in his statement that if he, Dushyant Singh and Rajesh had not caught the accused Virendra, he would have killed Kamlesh. This witness has denied in his cross-examination that Virendra did not have a tangi with him. Dushyant Kumar Singh (PW-4) has also stated that the accused had hit the injured Kamlesh with a tangi, although in cross-examination this witness has admitted that it was slightly dark at the time of the incident, so he could not see how Kamlesh was injured. 10. Maheshwar Singh (PW-6), Mahesh Kumar Singh (PW-7) and Dharti Singh (PW-8) have also stated that on the date of the incident, the 5 accused had attacked Kamlesh Gupta's neck with a tangi. However, Mahesh Kumar Singh (PW-7) and Dharti Singh (PW-8) have stated that they were not present at the time of the incident and that they came to know about the incident on the basis of information provided by others. 11. Dr. Ravi Lincoln Bada (PW-10) who treated injured Kamlesh Gupta while certifying the medical report Ex.P-16 has stated that on examination of Kamlesh Gupta it was found that there was a cut wound of size 10 cm. x 0.5 cm. x 2 cm. on the right side of his neck, from which blood was continuously flowing. The said injury was caused by a sharp and heavy object and the injury was 1 - 2 hours before the examination. 12. From minute examination of thee witnesses it is clear that upon considering the entire material, the trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant for a lesser offence under Section 307 of IPC. Also the accused/appellant is aged about 32 years of a remote area and he belongs to the member of Scheduled Tribe community though the injured his nephew Kamlesh Gupta also belongs to same community. The accused/appellant was not in a position to engage a lawyer to defend his case, therefore legal aid provided to the appellant. Also the appellant has not filed any application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Looking to the entire material and the appellant is served sentence more than 3 years and 11 months out of 7 years, the ends of justice would be served if the appellant be convicted for the period already undergone. 13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is hereby affirmed. The fine sentence of Rs.1000/- is also affirmed. If the said amount is not paid then the 6 concerned authorities are directed to serve the default part of the sentence as mentioned in para 35 of the judgment of the trial Court. The accused/appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone instead, R.I. for 7 years awarded by the trial Court. The accused/appellant is in jail, he be released forthwith if not required in any case after depositing the fine sentence and if not deposited, after serving the default part of the sentence in lieu of fine. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde