1 2025:CGHC:3808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 74 of 2025 1 - Omprakash @ Pokash Saytode S/o Shri Naindas Saytode Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Sundri (S) Police Station- Palari District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. ... Respondent For appellant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Adv. For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Mainkpuri, Dy. Govt. Adv. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 20-1-2025 1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 1923 (henceforth, referred to as ‘BNSS’) against impugned judgment dated 13-12-2024 passed by the 2nd Upper Sessions Judge, Balodabajar (CG), in Sessions Case No. 26/2023, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :- Sr. No. Conviction under Section Sentence Fine sentence Default stipulation 1 324 of the IPC 3 years RI Rs. 5,000/- Addl. RI for two months Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.01.23 13:13:07 +0530 2 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 11-8-2022 at 12.40 hours, complainant lodged FIR to the Police Station Palari to the effect that accused/appellant Om Prakash Saytode runs an egg shop on cart at the land situated behind the plot of father of complainant since last 2-3 months. On the date of incident i.e. 11-8-2022 at 10.00 am, he (complainant) asked maternal uncle Banti of the accused/appellant to remove the cart and returned to his home. At 11.30 hours, when complainant along with villagers Arvind Sultange, Ramadhar Sultange, Suraj Tandan and others were sitting at the bandstand, the accused came there holding an wooden stick and assaulted the complainant on his back, both the shoulders, left thigh and left side of his head by the said wooden stick. Thereafter his father and brothers took him on motorcycle to his home with the help of Aditya Chaturvedi and Santosh Joshi. On the basis of report of the complainant, FIR No. 445/2022 for offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC was registered against the accused / appellant. During the course of investigation, MLC of the victim was conducted vide Ex. P-10.Thereafter, application Ex. P- 11 was given to Community Health Center Palari for giving opinion regarding the injuries sustained by the injured. Sight map (Ex. P-5) of place of incident was prepared. The shirt and pants worn by the victim at the time of the incident were seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-2. On 21-12-2022, on the basis of memorandum statement (Ex. P-6) of accused, a bamboo stick was seized from him vide seizure memo Ex. P-7. Sight map vide Ex. P-3 was prepared by the Patwari. Accused Omprakash Saytode was arrested vide Ex. P-8. The police statement of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet under Section 307 of the IPC was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabajar, who committed the case to 3 the Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, thereafter the case was transferred to the Second Upper Sessions Judge, Balodabazar for trial. 4. Learned trial Court framed charge against appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, which was denied by the appellant. To bring home the charge, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. Appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence led by the prosecution. He has pleaded innocence and false implication. He has not examined any witness in his defence. 5. After considering the evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as has been mentioned in para 2 of this judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, he is not contesting instant criminal appeal on the point of conviction of appellant under Section 324 of IPC. He is confining his argument only on the point of quantum of sentence. He is also not arguing against fine sentence. It is submitted that the appellant is a poor person and the dispute in question arose with regard to the place of keeping cart of the appellant in which he sells eggs, which was objected by the victim. The appellant is the only earning member of his family and he runs the cart to earn his livelihood. It is submitted that the appellant has already served jail sentence of 2 months and 26 days, therefore, looking to the period of detention, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced by appellant on the basis of the evidence available on record, which does not require any interference of this Court. Hence, instant appeal may be dismissed. 8. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, I have perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has not argued on conviction part of the judgment and also the fine sentence. Even otherwise, Dr. B.S. Dhruw (P.W. 10), who examined the victim and prepared MLC report (Ex. P- 10), found six injuries on his body, and opined that injury No. 1 on his head, size 2 x 4 inch, was a lacerated wound and advised for x-ray of the same, other injuries were contusions and simple in nature. He has deposed that on seeing the x-ray of injury No. 1, he found that the injury was simple in nature. Thus, as per evidence of Dr. B.S. Dhruw (P.W. 10), all the injuries sustained by the injured in the incident were simple in nature. 10. Section 324 of the IPC provides maximum sentence for 3 years, but no minimum sentence has been provided. The trial Court has awarded maximum sentence to the appellant. The appellant has served jail sentence of 2 months and 26 days. Considering the evidence available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice would be served, if the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone by him. 11. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. Conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 324 of the IPC by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. Fine sentence awarded to the 5 accused/appellant along with default part is also hereby affirmed. Instead of RI for 3 years awarded by the trial Court to the appellant, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 12. The appellant is reported to be on bail. He need not surrender, if not required in any other case. It is directed that, his bail bond shall continue for a period of six month, as provided in Section 481 of the BNSS. 13. The appeal is partly allowed at the motion stage itself. 14. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the trial Court for compliance. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak