1 CRA No.399/2016 2025:CGHC:55652 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 399 of 2016 Baudha @ Daultram Sahu S/o Bhagirathi Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Jhumka, P.S. Sarseevan, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Sarseevan, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 14.11.2025 This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25/02/2016, passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 11/2015, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:- AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.11.19 11:25:00 +0530 2 CRA No.399/2016 Conviction Sentence Under Section 452 of the IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation. Under Section 506 B of the IPC R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation. Under Section 307 of the IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.3000/-, with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 1. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant Kishiram PW-7, father-in-law of victim, lodged a report at P.S. that on 15/02/2015 when he went to Sarsiwa for work, at 12:30 pm, his younger brother Kanhai PW-5 told that his daughter-in-law, Tulsi Bai PW- 6, wife of Ram Kumar Sahu, was assaulted with a Parsul/knife by the appellant by forcibly entering the house and threatening to kill her, causing fatal injuries on her neck, due to which, she was lying in the street. After reaching the spot, he saw that Tulsi Bai was lying in the street and she had severe injuries on her neck. Thereafter, she was taken to hospital for treatment. Based on above facts, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-7. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-8. Medical examination of injured was conducted. Statement of injured was recorded. Memorandum statement of appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-2 and on the basis of which, iron knife was seized vide Ex.P-3. Appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-5. After completion of investigation, final report was prepared. 3 CRA No.399/2016 2. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no eye witness in the case. He submits that PW-2 Ghasiyaram (Kotwar) was turned hostile and does not support the case of prosecution. PW-3 Savitri @ Kondu had categorically stated that the appellant was not having any weapon in his hand when he was entered in the house of victim. Seizure of weapon is doubtful as the police had seized the weapon from the backyard, but the Investigating Officer saw the weapon on the spot. He submits that the entire case of prosecution is doubtful and concocted, just to implicate the appellant in a false case. The learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that all the witness were interested witnesses. 4 CRA No.399/2016 Therefore, burden of proof was on the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. The question would be whether the accused-appellant herein is the author of the crime in question ? 8. Injured Tulsi Bai (PW6) stated in her evidence that on 15th February 2015, between 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m., she was alone at home. At that time, the accused came in to the house and then covered her mouth with a cloth and took her to another room. He asked her to do something wrong. When she refused, he tried to force himself on her. When the accused threatened to kill her with a Parsul (knife), she kicked him. The accused then hit her on the neck with a Parsul (knife), causing injuries to her neck. 5 CRA No.399/2016 Thereafter, the appellant fled from the spot and when she came out screaming, she was taken to hospital by villagers. 9. Complainant Kishiram PW-7, stated in his evidence that injured Tulsi Bai is his daughter-in-law. She lives separately with his son. On 15.02.2015, he had gone to Sarsiwa for daily wages work. From there, he returned to his home in Jhumka at around 1:00 PM. After taking a bath, when he returned home from the pond, he saw a large crowd gathered at the village square near the Samalai Budi Maa temple. People in the village told him that the accused had assaulted his daughter-in-law. When he went to the house, he saw a lot of blood fallen there. By that time, Tulsi Bai had already been taken for treatment. When he reached the hospital, the injured stated the police that the appellant had assaulted by means of Parsul on her neck. 10. Ramkumar Sahu PW-8, who is the husband of the injured Tulsi Bai, stated in his evidence that in 15.02.2015, he had gone to the village Avrethi for attend some ceremony. His wife Tulsi was alone at home. The villagers called him over the phone and informed that the appellant had struck Parsul (knife) on the neck. When he returned to the village, the villagers had already taken Tulsi Bai to Sarsiwa Hospital for treatment. After about 15–20 days, when Tulsi Bai returned, she told him that Boudha had came to house and after closing the door, he assaulted her with Parsul on her neck. 6 CRA No.399/2016 11.Kanhai PW-5 stated in his evidence on the date of incident, he was at his home. At that time, Tulsi Bai came near his house and said that Baudha alias Daulatram had attacked her and was shouting to save her. Tulsi Bai told him that the accused had struck her with a Parsul . He saw an injury on the neck of Tulsi Bai and blood was oozing out from her neck. This witness also stated that the memorandum statement (Exhibit P-2) bears his signature from B to B. He further stated that the police had seized the Parsul from appellant’s house. The seizure memo is Exhibit P-3, and bears his signature from B to B. 12. Dr. Deendayal Sahu (PW-11), who conducted medical examination of injured/victim stated that after examination, he found that there was an incised wound of 11 × 2 × 4 cm on her neck, which appeared to have been caused by a hard and sharp object. It also appeared that the injury might have occurred one to two hours prior to the medical examination. According to him, the injury was of grievous in nature. 13. In view of foregoing discussion, it is manifest from the evidence of injured Tulsi Bai (PW-6) that on 15th February 2015, when she was alone at home, the appellant entered the house of injured and forced her to do some wrong act with him. When Tulsi refused to do, the accused threatened to kill her and thereafter assaulted Tulsi by means of Parsul (knife) on her neck, due to which, blood was 7 CRA No.399/2016 oozing out from her neck. Statement of the injured-Tulsi supported by the testimonies of Kanhai (PW-5), Kishiram (PW-7), Ramkumar Sahu (PW-8), as well as the medical evidence of Dr. Deendayal Sahu (PW-11), this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. The ocular version of the victim stands firmly reinforced by medical findings, which conclusively establish that the grievous incised wound on her neck was caused by a sharp-edged weapon such as the Parsul recovered from the appellant’s house. 14. Hence, looking to the aforementioned evidence, it is apparent that the appellant herein is the person who committed the said offence. As such, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant has caused the injuries upon Tulsi Bai/injured by Parsul, is based on evidence available on record and accordingly, I hereby affirm the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant- accused is the author of the crime in question. 15. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties discharged. He shall surrender forthwith before the concerned trial Court forthwith serving remaining sentence as awarded by the trial Court, failing which he shall be taken into custody by the trial Court. 16. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present 8 CRA No.399/2016 judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court for information and necessary action. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/Amardeep