1 2025:CGHC:807 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1849 of 2019 1 - Sudhan Sai Paikra S/o Late Kirtan Sai Paikra Aged About 49 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Jhimaki Bathanpara, P.S. Kotba , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh....(In Jail), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Hemsagar Paikra S/o Sudhan Sai Paikra Aged About 25 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Jhimaki Bathanpara, P.S. Kotba , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh....(In Jail), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Leelawati Paikra D/o Sudhan Sai Paikra Aged About 22 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Jhimaki Bathanpara, P.S. Kotba , District Jashpur Chhattisgarh....(In Jail), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh .. Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office Police Station Bagbahara, Police Chowki Kotba District Jashpur Chhattisgarh...(Respondent), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 06/01/2025 2 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (for short the, Cr.P.C.) against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.11.2019 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 03/2019, whereby the learned trial Court sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced for RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine further RI for 06 months to each of the appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.10.2018 at about 05:30 p.m. when the victim had gone to his field along with his family members, at that time one of his relative came back to the house and when the victim had gone near the well for drinking water, he was being assaulted by the appellants and the appellant no. 1 Sudhan Sai Paikra and appellant no. 2 Hemsagar Paikra have caught the victim and the appellant no.3 Leelawati Paikra have cutted left wrist of the victim by sword. The incident was witnessed by PW-4 Jaishree Paikra who is the wife of the victim. The victim was being taken to Community Health Centre, Lailunga from where the doctor has sent the MLC intimation to the Police Station, Lailunga vide Ex.-P/4. The victim was being medically examined by the doctor at CHC, Lailunga who gave the MLC report Ex.-P/5. While medically examined the victim the doctor has found (i) one chop wound with dried dark red blood clot 05x02x0.5 cm clean cut margin on wrist joint region palm & fingers lost (ii) lacerated wound with dark red blood clot 03x01 cm on left occipital region. The doctor opined injury no.1 is grievous in nature and referred for x-ray of left wrist joint and the injury no.2 found to be simple in nature. The F.I.R. Ex.-P/10 was registered on 06.10.2018 for the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. against the appellants. The spot map Ex.-P/11 was prepared by the police, blood stained and plain soil, piece of stone, one towel and the palm along with fingers separated from the body of the victim has been seized from the spot vide 3 seizure memo Ex.-P/19. The numbered F.I.R. Ex.-P/23 was registered on 07.10.2018. The appellants were taken into custody and their memorandum statement Ex.-P/13, Ex.-P/14 and Ex.-P/15 have been recorded. Based on the memorandum statement of the appellant Leelawati Paikra Ex.-P/13, one sword and her clothes, blood like stained laggies and kurti have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/16. On the basis of memorandum statement of accused Sudhan Sai Paikra Ex.-P/15, his shirt and two lungies have been seized from him vide seizure memo Ex.-P/17. Further on the memorandum statement of the accused Hemsagar Paikra Ex.-P/14, one wooden club and t-shirt have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/18. The seized weapon of offence and articles were sent for query report to CHC, Lailunga from where the query report of the sword has been sent by doctor which is Ex.-P/6 and according to the query report the doctor has opined that: (i) whether it is human blood or not, sent to FSL, Raipur for chemical analysis (ii) injury no.1 mentioned in the report may be produced by this type of article (iii) injury no.1 appears to be grievous in nature may cause death of the said person if not treated in timely. With respect to the wooden club, the query report Ex.-P/7 was given by the doctor that (i) whether it is human blood or not sent for FSL, Raipur for chemical analysis, (ii) the injury no.2 mentioned in the MLC report may produced by this type of article (iii) injury no.2 mentioned in the report appears to be simple in nature so it may not come death of the said person due to this type of injury mentioned. The separated palm has also been examined by the doctor and gave his report Ex.-P/8 and opined that (i) as asked question, answer is definite opinion should be given after DNA analysis (ii) as asked question, answer is may produce by hard and sharp object like instrument/object. The panchnama Ex.-P/12 was also prepared in presence of the witnesses with respect to the seizure of the separated part of the palm including fingers. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination the FSL, Ambikapur from where report Ex.-P/28 was received 4 and according to the FSL report the blood stained soil (Article-A), stone seized from the spot (Article-C), towel seized from the spot (Article-D), sword seized from the appellant Leelawati Paikra (Article-E), kurti of the appellant Leelawati Paikra (Article-E-1), laggies of the appellant Leelawati Paikra (Article-E-2), shirt of the appellant Sudhan Sai Paikra (Article-U), lungi of the appellant Sudhan Sai Paikra (Article-U-1), club from the appellant Hemsagar Paikra (Article-A-1) and t-shirt of the appellant Hemsagar Paikra (Article-A-2) were found stained with the human blood. 3. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathalgaon District Jashpur for the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. 4. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur from where the same was transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 5. The learned trial Court has framed charges against the appellants for the offence under Sections 307/34 of I.P.C. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statement of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstance appears against them, plead innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 7. After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the offence. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt there are material omissions and 5 contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and their statement are inconsistent. He would further submits that the injury found on the body of the victim was not caused with the intention to commit the murder and only to taught a lesson to him some dispute arose and the victim received injuries by the stone which ultimately resulted into amputation of his palm. There is no motive proved by the prosecution to commit the offence to cause injury to the victim. He would further submits that the doctor has also opined that the death could have been possible if the victim is not being treated in time, therefore, in such type of evidence, the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. has not been proved. Yet the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants for that offence and severe sentence have been awarded to them. The appellants are in jail since 07.10.2018 and thereby they have already undergone more than 06 years of jail sentence. The entire family members are in jail, therefore, the undergone period of the appellants may be considered to be sufficient sentenced for the alleged offence. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that but for minor omissions and contradictions the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are fully reliable. The victim PW-5 have fully supported the prosecution case as he is the injured. His evidence is supported by PW-4 Jaishree Paikra who is the wife and the eye-witness to the incident. When the victim himself have stated about the incident which has been supported by the medical evidence, there is no need for any corroboration from any independent witnesses. There is overwhelming evidence available against the appellants in the case from which the conviction can safely be maintained. After appreciation of the evidence available on record as also considering the medical evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them which is strictly in accordance with law and the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed. 6 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. PW-5 Khuleshwar Paikra, is the victim in the case. He stated in his evidence that on 05.10.2019 when he, his wife Jaishree Paikra and his elder mother Chandra Bai Paikra had gone to their field for agricultural work, at about 05:00 p.m. when he went to well to drink water, at that time, the appellants came there having armed with danda and sword and appellant Hemsagar Paikra first assaulted him on his head by danda, when he tried to flee from the place he again assaulted on his head, thereafter, they pressed him in the field and started cutting his left hand by sword, when his hand was stuck in the mud and was not cutting, the appellant Leelawati Paikra put a stone under his hand and then the appellant Sudhan Sai Paikra and Hemsagar Paikra caught him hold and the appellant Leelawati Paikra cutted his left wrist. On being heard his shout, his wife came there and then the appellants fled away from the place. Immediately the incident was informed to the villagers and then he was being taken to Lailunga Hospital. He remained hospitalized at Lailunga hospital for 12 - 13 days. In cross-examination he admitted that he was having love affair with the appellant Leelawati Paikra since 2013 and on the report made by the Leelawati Paikra he was also been detained in jail for sometime. He along with Leelawati Paikra have resided together for about 8 - 9 months as husband and wife. He admitted that with respect to their relationship, a panchayat meeting was also convened in the village. When the appellant Leelawati Paikra came back to her house, he tried to bring her back but was not return to him and was in process to call the panchayat meeting but in the meantime the incident occurred. In cross- examination he remained firm in saying that the appellants have caused injuries to him by which he lost his left palm. 12. PW-4 Jaishree Paikra, is the wife of the victim who stated that on the date of incident she, her husband and her elder mother-in-law had gone to the field 7 for agricultural work. At about 05:00 p.m. when her husband had gone to well for drinking water, all the appellants came there having armed with danda and assaulted him on his head. They caught hold her husband and then cutted his left wrist. On being heard his noise, she also went on the spot and then the appellants fled away from the place. Thereafter, she informed the incident to other villagers and her husband was being taken to hospital. In cross-examination, she too have remained firm with respect to the incident and injuries to her husband. The defence could not extracted any material in cross-examination of all these witnesses so that their evidence could be disbelieved. 13. PW-2 Dr. Manoj Patel, who treated the victim at Community Health Centre, Lailunga have stated in his evidence that on 06.10.2018 the victim was brought before him at Community Health Centre, Lailunga for his treatment. After his examination he found that his left wrist was cutted and his left palm including fingers were missing. One lacerated wound was also been found on his left side of head. After his examination he gave his report Ex.-P/5. He also gave the query report Ex.-P/6, Ex.-P/7 and Ex.-P/8. In cross- examination he stated that at the time when the victim was brought in the hospital he was conscious and answering the questions, he also stated that his injuries was tied by the villagers and as and when it was opened the active bleeding was started and he stitch the injury. The hospital in-charge have sent MLC intimation to the police which is Ex.-P/4. The victim was admitted in the hospital on 05.10.2018 and was discharged on 16.10.2018. This witness has duly proved the injuries found on the victim and his treatment. 14. PW-3 Usman Paikra, is the nephew of the appellants Sudhan Sai Paikra cousin brother of the appellant Hemsagar Paikra and Leelawati Paikra he stated in his evidence that the victim Khuleshwar Paikra have received injuries on his left wrist which was cutted from there and palm was missing 8 active bleeding was there from the injuries and he took the victim to the Lailunga hospital. When he partly declare hostile he stated that on the date of incident his sister-in-law Jaishree Paikra has informed him that the appellants have caused injuries to the victim by danda and sword and she also informed that hand of Khuleshwar Paikra have been cutted by the appellants and he is lying in unconscious condition, thereafter, he went on the spot to bring him. 15. PW-6 Dharmendra Sai Paikra, is the maternal uncle of the victim he stated in his evidence that on the date of incident wife of the victim, Jaishree Paikra has informed him about incident. He went on the spot, took the victim and sent him to the Lailunga hospital. The victim Khuleshwar Paikra have received injuries on his left hand which cutted from wrist joint and his left palm was missing. When he was also partly declared hostile, he admitted that the Khuleshwar Paikra has left Leelawati Paikra and by that reason the appellants cutted the wrist of victim. In cross-examination he stated that he is the hearsay witness. 16. PW-8 Mahendra Kumar Paikra, is the witness of panchnama Ex.-P/12 memorandum Ex.-P/13, Ex.-P/14 and Ex.-P/15 and seizure memo Ex.-P/16, Ex.-P/17 and Ex.-P/18. Nothing in the evidence of this witness which makes his chief examination doubtful and to hold that the weapon of offence has not been seized from the respective appellants. 17. PW-11 C.P. Tripathi, is the ASI and Investigating Officer of the case has proved the entire process of investigation and nothing could be elicited by the defence in his evidence cross-examination also so that his evidence can be disbelieved. Minute examination of the evidence available on record makes it clear that on the date of incident when the victim went to his field for agricultural work and when he went to the well for drinking water, the appellants came there and caused the injuries to the victim by which his left palm from the wrist joint was separated. Therefore, the injuries caused by the 9 victim has been proved by the victim himself, his wife PW-4 Jaishree Paikra and also from the medical evidence of PW-2 Dr. Manoj Patel, therefore, the involvement of the appellants in the offence in question has been proved by the prosecution. 18. Since the victim have received cut injury on his left wrist and his left palm was separated from his body. The said injuries have also been proved by the PW-2 Dr. Manoj Patel which comes under the definition of grievous injuries as defined under Section 320 of the I.P.C. which the manner in which the alleged incident is occurred and the left wrist of the victim is cutted by the accused/appellants, it cannot be said that there is no knowledge of the appellants that the victim may have died. The learned trial Court after considering the definition of Section 307 of I.P.C. that the appellants have done their act with knowledge and it would be sufficient to cause death if he was not being treated in time, they would be guilty of murder and considering the evidence led by the prosecution and the nature of evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. in which this Court does not found any infirmity or perversity in the conviction of the appellants. 19. 19. So far as the sentence awarded to the appellants are concerned, the learned counsel of the appellants would submit that the entire family members have been implicated in the offence. The appellants are in jail since 07.10.2018. The appellants and the victim are relatives, the incident is of the year 2018 and in view of the their social and economical condition, their undergone period may be considered to be sufficient sentence for the alleged offence. 20. In the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in Para 9 as follows: 10 “9. Western jurisprudes and sociologists. from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samuel Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : “The laws of England are written in blood”. Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it'. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Center, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education'. If it is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration. that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed. that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by reculturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and the goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore, consider a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts. since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : “If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.” 21. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case as also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentenced awarded to the appellants sentence awarded to the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is reduced from RI for 10 years to RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 17,000/- to each of the appellants. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. their sentence is reduced from RI for 10 years to RI for 07 years with fine of Rs. 17,000/- to each of the appellants. The fine amount already paid by the appellants, if any, shall be adjusted to the total fine amount awarded by this Court. In default of payment of fine amount, the appellants shall undergo further RI for 02 months. On being so deposited of 11 the fine amount by the appellants, total Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the victim PW-5 (Khuleshwar Paikra) as compensation as provided under Section 395 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 22. With this modification/observation of the sentence awarded to the appellants the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants are entitled for set-off of their undergone period. 23. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.01.14 19:45:46 +0530