1 2025:CGHC:52760 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1127 of 2016 Bhuneshwar Sahu S/o Late Shobha Ram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kagdehi, Police Station Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Arang District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 29/10/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.40/2016 by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Dist Raipur (C.G.) whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 2000/-, with default stipulation. 2. According to the prosecution, on 23.11.2015 around 12:00 noon, JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.04 10:13:14 +0530 2 the applicant Hemraj and Bhuneshwar Sahu of village Manikpari went to Achhola liquor distillery, where they consumed liquor together. After returning to the village, they visited Bhuneshwar’s house. While Hemraj was consuming Gudakhu, it accidentally stuck to Bhuneshwar’s shirt, which led to an argument between them. Bhuneshwar demanded a new shirt and went back to his house. Soon after, while Hemraj was sitting in the courtyard, Bhuneshwar returned with a half-liter jerrycan of kerosene, poured it on Hemraj’s head, filled some in his mouth, and set him on fire with the intent to kill him. Hemraj managed to extinguish the fire with his towel and sought help from nearby villagers, including Liladhar Sahu, who, along with others, witnessed the incident. On Hemraj’s report, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Arang. During investigation, the kerosene contained in jerrycan and matchsticks used in the incident were recovered at the instance of the accused, statements of eyewitnesses were recorded, and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur. The appellant was arrested and after framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded 3 his innocence and false implication in the matter. 4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 29.08.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court is bad in law as well as on facts, as the court below has failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned trial court has overlooked the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence and has erred in holding the appellant guilty despite the prosecution having miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the complainant and the appellant were known to each other and had been friends for a long time; the alleged incident occurred merely due to a sudden quarrel after consumption of liquor by both parties, as admitted by the complainant himself (PW-7 Hemraj Manikpuri). The complainant has also stated that there was no previous enmity between them. The learned court below failed to properly appreciate this vital aspect, as well as the fact that all independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case. Hence, the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is based on misappreciation of evidence. 4 The appellant, therefore, prays that the impugned judgment and order of conviction be set aside. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. PW-07 Hemraj, injured, stated that the incident occurred at about 11:30 a.m. on the date of occurrence. He and the accused had consumed liquor separately and thereafter went together to his (Hemraj’s) house. He further stated that they had brought some liquor from the shop to his house and consumed about half of it each. Thereafter, both of them went to the house of the accused. The witness further stated that while he was consuming gudhaku, some gudhaku was sprinkled on the shirt of the accused. The accused then asked him to wash his shirt, to which he replied that he would fetch some water and wash it. At this, the accused told him, “Bring me a new shirt,” and he responded that he would give him a new one. PW-07 further stated that thereafter he went to a fancy clothes shop situated opposite the accused’s house to buy a new shirt. At that time, the accused entered his house, brought a one-litre jerrycan of kerosene, poured kerosene into his mouth, 5 and then sprayed it onto him (the witness), setting him on fire. The witness stated that he sustained burn injuries and fell into the fire. He further deposed that Liladhar, who was standing in front of the clothing shop at that time, came forward and extinguished the flames using a towel in order to save him. He also stated that the clothes hanging in Liladhar’s shop caught fire due to the kerosene and flames. 9. PW-6 namely Liladhar Sahu stated that the incident took place last year, one or two days after Diwali, at around 1:00 to 1:30 p.m. he was sitting in the shop of Hemlal Sen and chatting with him. At that time, the accused, Bhuneshwar, and one Hemraj Manikpuri were arguing over some matter. During the altercation, the accused Bhuneshwar went to his house, brought kerosene, filled his mouth with it, lit a matchstick, and attempted to blow the kerosene into the flame. Seeing this, Hemraj Manikpuri became frightened and came running towards him. He was standing outside the shop at that moment. When Hemraj Manikpuri reached near him, the accused Bhuneshwar poured kerosene oil on him and set him on fire. Hemraj Manikpuri immediately caught fire, and I narrowly escaped from the flames. Hemraj shouted, “Save me, save me,” and in his panic tried to cling to him. He stated that he was attempting to save both himself and Hemraj when he fell to the ground, badly burned. He further stated that he asked the accused Bhuneshwar to help save Hemraj, but instead, he said, “Let him burn, let him die.” When the accused poured 6 kerosene, some of it splashed around, and the clothes hanging in front of Hemlal Sen’s shop also caught fire. Hemlal Sen started trying to extinguish the flames while he attempted to help Hemraj. Even after setting Hemraj on fire, the accused Bhuneshwar did not make any effort to save him and kept saying, “Let him die.” Seeing this, he pushed the accused on his cheek in anger. 10. PW- 08 Dr. B.K. Chandravanshi stated that on 23rd November 2015, at about 5:15 p.m., the injured person, Hemraj Manikpuri, was brought to the hospital for treatment by Constable Police Station Arang. On medical examination, he found the following injuries on his body: (1) a burn wound measuring 6 x 2 cm on the front of the neck; (2) a burn wound measuring 8 x 3 cm behind the right ear; (3) a burn wound measuring 30 x 10 cm on the right wrist and forearm; and (4) a burn wound measuring 2 x 2 cm on the back of the right palm. He further stated that all the above injuries were superficial in nature and had been caused within approximately six hours prior to the examination. Under normal circumstances, such injuries are expected to heal within 15 to 21 days. He prepared his report (Exhibit P-14). In cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused, he stated that it is correct that all the injuries sustained by the injured person were minor in nature and not life-threatening. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the nature of injuries sustained by the 7 Victim, further considering the evidence adduced by the victim which is duly corroborated by the medical evidence, I am of the opinion that the trial Court did not commit any illegality in convicting the appellant under Section 324 of the IPC. 12. So far as, the sentence part is concerned, considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, However, looking to the nature of injury sustained by the appellant and also the fact that the injury sustained by the victim are not grievous in nature and also the fact that the incident is of the year 2015, and both the accused and the victim were in intoxicated situation during pendency of this appeal the appellant was on bail since 2016; and did not misuse the liberty granted to him and keeping in view the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellant back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served, if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 24 days and the fine amount of Rs. 2,000/- imposed by the Trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- and the said amount, Rs. 20,000/- is directed to be paid to the injured as compensation. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. His convicted under section 324 of the IPC and the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8 14. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 15. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti