1 2025:CGHC:61592 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1106 of 2024 Banshilal Vishwakarma S/o Lt. Randheer Vishwakarma Aged About 22 Years R/o Shastri Chowk Dipara Para P.S. Kotwali Durg District- Durg ( C.G.). ... Appellant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station- Kotwali Durg District- Durg ( C.G.). ---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on board 15.12.2025. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.02.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Session Trial No.50/2021, whereby appellant stands convicted and sentence as under: Conviction Sentence 2 Under Section 307 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years & fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month additional SI. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that in the intervening night (between 03.04.2020 to 04.04.2020) at about 3:00 AM, when complainant -Radha Kelkar (P.W-4) was returning to her home, he saw that the appellant/accused was standing in front of her house, she asked him the reason for standing here, to which, appellant-accused started abusing him and, thereafter, he assaulted on her stomach by means of knife, due to which, she suffered grievous injuries on her stomach, she was taken to the hospital for treatment. Based upon report, FIR was registered and appellant has been arrested in the alleged crime/offence. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet/challan was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charge against him. 4. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 08 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. 3 Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that she is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. She submits that incident had taken place in the year 2020, there was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, it was the first offence of appellant, at the time of incident appellant was aged about only 22 years, he has already served about 04 years of jail sentence. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that looking to the injury suffered by victim, leniency should not be shown to appellant herein. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 9. PW-4/complainant-victim in her evidence has stated that she identified the appellant/accused present before the Court by his face. On the date of alleged incident, she had gone to a public toilet situated near his house. While returning therefrom, she saw the accused coming out from his house, to which, she questioned him as to why he was coming out from his house, at 4 that time, the accused did not say anything and went away. After some time, the accused returned back carrying a knife and firstly threatened her and, thereafter, he assaulted on her stomach by means of knife, as a result of which, her intestines protruded out. She was taken to the hospital and she remained unconscious for about 6-7 days due to said injuries. 10. PW-7/Dr. Swami Dev Bhupendra and PW-8/Dr.Utkarsh Nanda in their evidence has supported the injury sustained by the victim in her stomach by means of any sharp and blunt object. 11. Though learned counsel for appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted her prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 12. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness and available documents, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 5 13. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the fact that incident took place in the year 2020, appellant inflicted only a single stab injury upon the victim/complainant, it was the first offence of appellant, at the time of incident appellant was aged about only 22 years, he has already served about 04 years of jail sentence, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant (RI for 10 years) appears to be on higher side. So keeping in view all the circumstances, mentioned above, ends of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon appellant is reduced from RI 10 years to RI 05 years. 14. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellant under Section 307 of the IPC, the sentence imposed upon him by trial Court under Section 307 of IPC is reduced from RI for 10 years to RI 05 years. However, sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court is hereby maintained. 15. Record of case be sent back forthwith with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-