1 2025:CGHC:43113 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1829 of 2022 Shiv Narain Sahu S/o Late Ramdulare, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village- Kasra, Chhattasarai, Police Station-Patna, District-Korea (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through-Police Station-Patna, District Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 25.08.2025 1. Today, this matter is listed on admission. However, the matter is heard finally with the consent of both the parties. 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Baikunthpur (Korea), Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No.62/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced for imprisonment for one year. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.09.01 18:48:49 +0530 2 3. As per the prosecution's case, on 27.04.2019 at around 11:30 AM in Village Kasra, Chhattasaria (C.G.), under Police Station Patna, an FIR (Ex.P/18) was lodged by one Matallu Sahu (PW-9). It was reported that the deceased, accompanied by one Bablu, had approached him to accompany them to the house of the appellant, who is the father-in-law of the deceased’s daughter. At the appellant’s residence, the deceased requested the return of dowry articles on the ground that his daughter was now living separately. The appellant, however, insisted that the articles would be returned only upon the return of the mangal sutra. This led to a dispute and heated altercation between the deceased, the appellant, and his family members. Thereafter, Matallu (PW-9) and Bablu (PW-12) exited the house, followed by the deceased. At that point, the appellant allegedly attacked the deceased with an axe, striking him repeatedly. As a result, the deceased collapsed on the spot and succumbed to his injuries. 4. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the Court of concerned Magistrate under Sections 302, 323, 34 of the IPC, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the case commenced for trial. 5. The plea of the accused person/appellant was recorded. While examination and recording statement under Section 313 of CrPC, the accused stated that he was innocent and he had been falsely implicated. 6. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. After appreciation 3 of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused person/appellant of the charge under Sections 302, 34 of the IPC, however, convicted him under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 12.04.2022 is bad in law and fact as well and hence, liable to be set aside. She further submits that the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the learned trial Court without there being any cogent and clinching evidence available against him. So far as the present appeal is concerned, the appellant has been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year, however, the appellant has already served jail sentence for more than one year. She further submits that no case is made out against the appellant under Section 323 of IPC and therefore, the conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned State counsel submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is well reasoned order which warrants no interference. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the learned trial Court. 10. From perusal of the impugned judgment, materials annexed with the memo of appeal, it transpires that the present appellant has been convicted under Section 323 of IPC by the learned trial Court, however, the son (Suraj Sahu) of the appellant who was also convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced for life 4 imprisonment by the impugned judgment, preferred an appeal (CRA No.823/2022) which has been partly allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2023. Further, against the acquittal of Janki Bai, who is wife of Shiv Narayan Sahu/appellant, and further for enhancing the sentence of the present appellant, the State preferred CRMP No.1470/2022, and the same was also dismissed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.07.2025. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and hence, no interference is called for. Thus, this appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 12. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Ramesh Sinha Chief Justice Preeti