1 2025:CGHC:22909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2143 of 2023 Mohammad Kasim @ Sonu @ Makkhi Khan S/o Mohammad Muneer Khan Aged About 27 Years R/o Nawab Mohalla Kawardha, Police Station- Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 10.06.2025 1. Today, though the present appeal has been listed for hearing on IA No.01 of 2023, which is application under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of order to pay fine amount, but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and considering the period of detention of the appellant, the appeal is being heard finally. 2. Accordingly, IA No. 01 of 2023 stands disposed of. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.09.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 01/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Period up to already undergone and fine amounting to Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 06 months. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 05.11.2021, at around 07:00 PM, the victim/injured Bhuvan Sahu was proceeding towards the river along with some villagers. It is alleged that the present applicant, along with a female companion, arrived at the location and was confronted by the victim and other villagers. The applicant allegedly abused the victim in filthy language and assaulted him with a sharp-edged weapon with the intent to cause his death. It is further alleged that the victim sustained a head injury from which blood started oozing, following which the applicant fled from the scene. The injured victim then went to his house and narrated the incident to his father, who arranged for an ambulance. The victim was initially taken to a local hospital and later referred to a higher center due to the seriousness of the head injury. He was admitted to Radiance Hospital, Kawardha, where he underwent treatment. An operation was performed after four days, and he remained 3 hospitalized for a total of eight days. On the basis of the written report lodged by the father of the victim, an FIR was registered under Sections 294, 323, 506 (Part-II), and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. During medical examination, injuries were found on the victim, although the nature of injuries was not specified in the Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC). The memorandum statement of the accused was recorded, and the weapon used in the incident was seized by the police. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No. 01/2022 before the learned Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). 5. On 05.11.2021, Dr. Sangeeta Wachkar, Medical Officer, informed Police Station Kawardha through Ex.P-01 that injured Bhuwan Sahu, son of Ramkumar Sahu, had been admitted to District Hospital Kawardha for treatment. Upon request, the Police Help Centre at District Hospital Kawardha had Bhuwan Sahu medically examined and applied for a medico-legal report. Based on this application, Dr. Sangeeta Wachkar conducted the medical examination and provided the Medico-Legal Report as Ex.P-02. The injured was referred to the Medical College, Raipur, for further consultation with Orthopaedic, Surgical, and Radiology specialists for NCCT and CT scan. On 05.11.2021, Bhuwan Sahu, injured in the assault, was admitted to Radiance Hospital, where Dr. Ankit Jain performed surgery on his head and issued a medical report marked as Ex.P-08. 4 6. During the investigation, on 06.11.2021, Sub-Inspector Geetanjali Sinha prepared the spot map (site plan) as Ex.P-12. Blood-stained and plain soil was seized from the scene, as per the seizure memo Ex.P-16. On the same date, upon production of Bhuwan Sahu at Radiance Hospital, a blood-stained shirt was seized and documented as per seizure memo Ex.P-13. An application (Ex.P- 22) was sent to the Medical Officer, Radiance Hospital, requesting information on whether the injured was fit to give a statement. Dr. Gajendra Singh of Radiance Hospital certified that the patient was fully conscious and in a position to give a statement. 7. Witnesses Bhagirathi Sahu and Nandram were served notices (Ex.s P-23 and P-21, respectively) to remain present during the interrogation of the accused. In their presence, the accused, Kasim alias Sonu, was taken into custody, and his memorandum statement was recorded as Ex. P-19. On the basis of the memorandum, a sword-like knife with a total length of 18 inches (blade: 12 inches 8 cm; width: 1 inch 8 cm; handle: 5 inches 2 cm) was recovered from the dickey of the accused’s Scooty bearing number CG 09/JE/6068, parked near the Forest Office and Vehicle Servicing Center. The knife and the Scooty were seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-17. A T-shirt presented by the accused was also seized and documented in seizure memo Ex. P-18. The accused was arrested, and the arrest memo was prepared as Ex. P-20. Arrest information was sent to Shera Khan via Ex. P-24. 8. During investigation, SI Geetanjali Sinha submitted an application (Ex. P-26) to the Tehsildar requesting the Patwari to prepare a map 5 of the incident site. Accordingly, Patwari Shivdayal Kaushik prepared the site map in the presence of witnesses, as per Ex. P- 15. On 30.11.2021, a memorandum (Ex. P-27) was sent to the Medical Officer, Radiance Hospital, Kawardha, seeking the Bed Head Ticket and CT Scan Report of Bhuwan Sahu. Dr. Gajendra Singh provided the treatment documents (Ex. P-10) comprising 10 pages. On 20.12.2021, a memorandum (Ex. P-28) was sent to the Medical Officer, D.K.S. Hospital, Raipur, requesting the NCCT report of Bhuwan Sahu, to which Dr. Bharat Gupta of DKS Hospital provided the CT Scan report (Ex. P-09). 9. During the investigation, on 09.12.2021, a query letter (Ex. P-30) was sent regarding the medico-legal report of injured Bhuwan Sahu, asking whether the injuries sustained on the date and time of the incident were grievous or simple and whether the injuries could have been fatal. Dr. Sangeeta Wachkar responded with a query report marked as Ex. P-03. Another application was submitted to the Medical Officer, District Hospital Kawardha, for chemical examination of the seized shirt. Dr. Sangeeta Wachkar recommended chemical analysis and provided query reports marked as Ex.s P-04 and P-05. 10. On the same date, the blood-stained soil and knife recovered from the accused were submitted for expert opinion. The queries were whether the bloodstains were of human origin, whether the injuries sustained could be caused by the seized knife, and whether such injuries could have been fatal. Dr. Sangeeta Wachkar conducted 6 the examination and issued query reports marked as Ex.s P-06 and P-07. 11. Sub-Inspector Geetanjali Sinha forwarded the seized property along with memo Ex. P-31 to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, for chemical analysis. The acknowledgment receipt was marked as Ex. P-32, and the final FSL report was received and marked as Ex. P-33. A certified copy of the crime history of the accused from the police station record (crime register) was annexed as Ex. P-34. 12. The charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which he denied and claimed trial. 13. During the investigation of the incident, the statements of PW-01: Dr. Sangeeta Wachkar, PW-02: Dr. Ankit Jain, PW-03: Dr. Bharat Gupta, PW-04: Dr. Gajendra Singh, PW-05: Ramkumar Sahu, PW- 06: Bhuwan Sahu, PW-07: Shivdayal Kaushik, PW-08: Kaushal Sahu, PW-09: Bhagirathi Sahu, PW-10: Nandram Sahu, PW-11: Sub-Inspector Geetanjali Sinha were recorded as per their statements. 14. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited the documents (Exs.P-1 to P-34). The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation 7 of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 3 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant. The judgment, sentence, and findings recorded by the learned trial court are contrary to law, facts, and the evidence on record. The judgment of conviction passed against the appellant is unduly harsh and not in accordance with law. He further submits that the main prosecution witnesses are closely related to the injured and are, therefore, interested witnesses. Despite this, there are material contradictions in their testimonies. The learned trial court failed to appreciate the fact that no incident of assault with the intention to cause death was committed by the present appellant. Furthermore, a compromise was arrived at between the parties, as a result of which the witnesses turned hostile before the learned trial court. It is evident that the learned trial court did not properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are highly doubtful, and independent witnesses turned hostile during examination before the learned Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). Therefore, a conviction solely on the basis of the statements of the complainant and the injured, without considering the entirety of the deposition and evidence, is unjustified and unsustainable in law. The appellant is, thus, entitled to acquittal. 8 16. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not support the prosecution case, and there are significant contradictions, omissions, and improvements in their statements. Moreover, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not attracted in the present case, even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken at its face value. Accordingly, the learned trial court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant under the said provision. Further the learned Sessions Judge also failed to consider the documents and evidence presented by the defence witnesses, which clearly demonstrate that the present appellant has been falsely implicated in a fabricated case. The existence of a compromise between the parties further weakens the prosecution case, which is not supported even by its own witnesses. Therefore, the appellant is liable to be acquitted of all charges. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the defence is not required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the prosecution must. It is sufficient for the defence to raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case to warrant an acquittal. This principle was wholly ignored by the learned trial court. Further there is nothing on record to justify the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, the prosecution could not establish any of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. Hence, the appellant could not have been convicted under any of the charges framed against him. The impugned judgment of 9 conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court is unsustainable and liable to be set-aside by this Hon'ble Court. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that Gayatyri Dhurve (DW-2) the eye witnesses of the incident and the trial Court after appreciating evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned order, in which no interference is sought for. 18. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 19. The Injured, Bhuvan Sahu (PW-06), in his deposition before the Court, stated that on the date of the incident, he had gone for idol immersion along with other villagers. Other villagers, including Ramkiran Sahu, Omkar Sahu, Ramadhar Sahu, Bhagirathi Sahu, and others, had also gone. On the day of immersion, the accused Kasim alias Sonu alias Makkhi Khan arrived near the river on a scooter with a girl. At that time, this witness was recording a video. The accused, while abusing and threatening to kill him, took out a meat-cutting sword from his scooter and struck him on the right side of his head, causing a deep wound, with profuse bleeding. Thereafter, he went home and informed his parents about the incident. The accused fled the scene. 20. Supporting the statement of this witness, other prosecution witnesses, Nandram (PW-10) and Bhagirathi (PW-09), in their depositions before the Court, stated that on the date of the incident, 10 while they were going for idol immersion along with other villagers, the accused arrived on a scooter with a woman. When he was asked to move aside, he started hurling abusive language involving their mothers and sisters. He then took out a meat-cutting weapon from the scooter’s compartment and struck Bhuvan on the head, causing a head injury. They called the emergency service 112 and took the injured to the government hospital. 21. Ramkumar Sahu (PW-05), who is the father of the injured, supported the prosecution version and stated in his court testimony that he called 112 and took his son to the government hospital, where he was referred to a higher medical facility. He took his son to Radiance Hospital, Kawardha, and lodged the report marked as Ex.-11. 22. Dr. Sangeeta Wachkar (PW-01), in her deposition, stated that on 05.11.2021, the injured Bhuvan Sahu, son of Ramkumar Sahu, was admitted to the District Hospital Kawardha for treatment of his injuries, and the information thereof was provided to the police station, as marked in Ex.-01. On the same date, upon receiving a written application from the Police Assistance Centre requesting medical examination and opinion, she examined the injured and found the following injuries: 1. The injured was conscious and oriented. A lacerated wound was found on the right side of the scalp, measuring approximately 8-9 x 4 x 2 cm. 2. An open skull fracture was found on the right side of the head. 11 The injuries appeared to have been inflicted by a hard and sharp- edged object. The nature of the injuries was grievous. She advised further consultation from orthopaedic, surgical, and radiological specialists and referred the injured for a CT scan and to the Medical College Raipur. The medical report prepared by her was marked as Exhibit-02 and was certified by her. 23. Orthopedic specialist Dr. Gajendra Singh (PW-04), in his deposition, stated that on 05.11.2021, injured Bhuvan Sahu, aged 30 years, resident of Rengakhar Khurd, was admitted to Radiance Hospital, Kawardha for treatment of injuries sustained in an assault. The following injuries were found upon examination: 1. The injured stated that he was assaulted with a sharp weapon by a person around 6 PM in Village Rengakhar. He had received primary treatment at the District Hospital, Kabirdham and was referred to a higher medical institute. The injured had not lost consciousness and had not vomited. 2. Upon examination, a deep cut wound was found on the right side of the forehead, measuring 10 x 4 cm, reaching the bone, with visible fractured bone and active bleeding. The doctor advised a CT scan. The CT scan report showed fracture of the right frontal bone and accumulation of blood. The fracture was operated upon on 08.11.2021 by Dr. Ankit Jain, during which a titanium micro-plate was implanted. The injured remained admitted in Radiance Hospital from 05.11.2021 to 12.11.2021. In the opinion 12 of the expert witness, the injury sustained by the injured was grievous in nature. The hospital had received a requisition from the Police Station Kawardha for medical records, which were provided as Ex.-10. 24. Dr. Ankit Jain (PW-02), in his deposition, stated that on 05.11.2021, injured Bhuvan Sahu was admitted to Radiance Hospital due to injuries sustained in an assault. The injured had sustained a lacerated open wound on the head, which was operated on by him on 08.11.2021. He implanted a titanium plate on the skull bone. The frontal bone of the injured was fractured and exposed. During surgery, a titanium plate measuring 1.5 x 6 mm was fixed on the head using screws. The nature of the injury was grievous. He verified and certified the medical report marked as Exhibit-08 as having been issued by him. 25. Dr. Bharat Gupta (PW-03), in his deposition, stated that on 20.12.2021, injured Bhuvan Sahu came to DKS Hospital Raipur for NCCT and CT scan of the head. He conducted the scan and issued a report. The scan showed normal condition of the head. He confirmed and certified the CT scan report marked as Exhibit-09. Sub-Inspector Geetanjali Sinha (PW-11), in her deposition, stated that on 09.12.2021, she forwarded an application (Ex.-30) to Dr. Sangeeta Wachkar requesting a query report on whether the injuries sustained by the injured on the date and time of the incident were grievous or simple in nature, and whether such injuries could have been fatal. 13 26. Supporting this, Dr. Sangeeta Wachkar (PW-01) stated in her court deposition that on 09.12.2021, the Station House Officer of Police Station Kawardha had sent her an application seeking a query report. In response, she informed the SHO that the injury sustained by the injured was of grievous nature and that the injury could have been fatal, considering its severity. The query report provided by her was marked as Ex.-03. 27. From the above-mentioned statements of witnesses and the medical documents presented, it is clearly established that on the date of the incident, grievous injuries were inflicted on the head of Bhuvan Sahu by assault using a sharp-edged weapon. The injury was such that it could have resulted in the death of the injured. The learned trial Court had already taken a sympathetic and liberal view in the matter while imposing the sentence for the offence in question and has sentenced the appellant to the period already undergone, along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 28. Hence, considering the above-stated facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and has appropriately sentenced the appellant to the period already undergone, along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 29. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence awarded by the 14 trial court to the appellant is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 30. However, it is directed to the appellant that he will deposit the fine amount as has been awarded by the trial Court concerned within a period of 01 month from today, failing which, he shall be taken into custody to serve out remaining sentence awarded by the trial Court in default of payment of fine. 31. A certified copy of this order along with the trial Court record be sent to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan