1 2025:CGHC:11466 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2104 of 2023 Amar Singh @ Jhingri Kamar S/o Sonau Ram Kamar, Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Borai, Police Station Borai, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra Borai, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07 . 03 .202 5 1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 25.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, in Sessions Case No. 05/2022 whereby the the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner: Sentence Conviction Under Section 307 of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Indian Penal Code. with fine amount of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 03 months. U/s 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act, R.I. for 01 year with fine amount of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 01 month. U/s 27(1) of the Arms Act R.I. for 03 years with fine amount of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further RI for 01 month. All the sentences will run concurrently 2. Judgment of conviction is challenged on the ground that without there being any clinching and reliable evidence against the appellant, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed an illegality. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.11.2021, at around 7:00 pm, Savitri Bai was sleeping at her house after dinner. At around 8:00 P.M., she woke up hearing the sound of bricks and stones hitting her roof and saw her neighbor, Amar Singh @ Jhingri Kamar, trying to throw bricks from his side of the garden. When she asked him to stop, Amar Singh @ Jhingri Kamar became angry and started abusing her. Savitri Bai then went to her courtyard and informed Dasruram Netam about the incident. When Dasruram Netam asked Amar Singh @ Jhingri Kamar to stop, he became even angrier, started abusing Dasruram Netam, and inflicted a fatal blow to his chest with a sharp object which he was carrying. Based on Savitri Bai's information, an FIR was registered against the 3 appellant on 20.11.2021, and he was arrested the same day. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted before the competent jurisdictional criminal Court, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Dhamtari, from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari received the case on transfer for trial. 4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and innocency and false implication is claimed. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G) after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforementioned. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court is illegal, incorrect and perverse as per prosecution story and material available on record. He further submits that the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is against the cannons of law which is liable to be set aside. He also submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in accordance with law and arrived at a wrong conclusion, hence the appellant has been wrongly convicted under the offence as indicated above. The learned trial Court committed an error and wrongly found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under 4 Section 307 of the IPC and Sectios 25(1-B)(b) & 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959. He contended that learned Trial Court ought to have seen contradiction and omission in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Alternatively, he submits that the trial Court has awarded the sentence of RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/- to the appellant. Considering the age of the appellant at present, the sentence already undergone by him i.e. more than 03 years and 03 months is sufÏcient sentence for the offence as mentioned above. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, in which no interference is called for. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned as also record of the trial Court. 9. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 307 of the IPC and Sectios 25(1-B)(b) & 27(1) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and fine of of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3m months, RI for 1 year and fine of of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1 month and RI for 3 years and fine of of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1 month. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in 5 convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC and Sectios 25(1-B)(b) & 27(1) of Arms Act. 10. As regards the question of sentence, the present appellant is in custody since since 20.11.2021 and has completed more than 03 years and 03 months. Offence took place when Savitri Bai woke up after hearing the sound of hitting the roof of her house with bricks and stones and saw that her neighbour Amar Singh @ Jhingri Kumar (present appellant) was trying to throw bricks from his side of the garden, when she asked him not to do so, the appellant got angry and started abusing her. Thereafter, she went to the courtyard of her house and informed Dashruram Netam about the incident and then Dashruram Netam asked the appellant not to do the above mentioned act, the appellant out of his anger started abusing Dasruram Netam and with an intention to kill him inflicted a fatal blow of his chest with a sharp object he was keeping with him. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of injury, its nature and mitigating circumstances, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections Sections 25(1-B)(b) and 27(1) of the Arms Act are hereby maintained. Conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is also hereby maintained, however, his sentence is reduced from RI for 5 years to the period already undergone by him i.e. more than 03 years and 03 months and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. 6 12. 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. 13. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan