1 2025:CGHC:57474 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1088 of 2025 Kushal Sahu S/o Dhaniram Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Dasharma Road, Near Ramsagar Talab Balodabazar, Police Station City Kotwali, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Ms. Lata Nayak, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate ___________________________________________________________ WITH CRA No. 1092 of 2025 Vishal Thakur S/o Shri Shekhar Thakur Aged About 25 Years R/o Azad Chowk, Baloda Bazar, Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S. City Kotwali Baloda Bazar, 2 Dist- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ---- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate ___________________________________________________________ WITH CRA No. 1118 of 2025 Subhash Sahu S/o Ujjan Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o P.S. City Kotwali, Balodabazar, Dasrama Road, Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Of Police Station, City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL ___________________________________________________________ WITH CRA No. 1817 of 2025 Sanjay Soni S/o Bhola Soni Aged About 25 Years R/o Dasrma Road, Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Of Police Station, City Kotwali, Balodabazar District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 --- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board 26/11/2025 1. Since all the appeals have been arisen out of common judgment, therefore, all the appeals are decided by this common judgment. 2. The appellants have filed the instant appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth ‘the BNSS') questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.05.2025 passed in Sessions Case No.56/2019 by which the Sessions Judge, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :- Appellant - Kushal Sahu &Appellant - Vishal Thakur Conviction Sentence In Default Under Section 147 of IPC R.I. for 06 months and fine amount of Rs.500/- In default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for one month Under Section R.I. for 04 years In default of 4 307/149 of IPC and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- payment of fine amount further R.I. for 02 months Appellant - Subhash Sahu & Appellant - Sanjay Soni Conviction Sentence In Default Under Section 148 of IPC R.I. for 01 year and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- In default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 02 months Under Section 307/149 of IPC R.I. for 04 years and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- In default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 02 months Under Section 25(1-B),(b) of the Arms Act R.I. for 01 year and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- In default of payment of fine amount further R.I. for 02 months 3. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of these appeals are that on 13.05.2019 at around 9:30 pm at Nagar Bhawan Balodabazar where Dinesh Sahu's wedding was taking place and DJ sound service was being arranged. At that time, a dispute was going on between Aditya Yadav and accused Vishal Thakur, so Vishal called his uncle, accused Dhannu. Accused Dhannu arrived at Nagar Bhawan at 9:50 pm with other accused Subhash Sahu, Sanjay Soni, Kushal Sahu alias Patwari. Accused 5 Vishal Thakur, Subhash Sahu, Sanjay Soni, Kushal Sahu alias Patwari, Dhananjay alias Dhannu Mandavi together beat Aditya Yadav by asking him why he had a fight with Vishal and abused him with filthy language about his mother and sister, threatened to kill him and beat him with hands, fists and punches. Tarun Kumar Sahu intervened to stop the fight. Accused Vishal, Dhannu, Subhash Sahu, Sanjay Soni, Kushal Sahu together said who are you to stop them and abused Tarun Kumar Sahu with filthy language about his mother and sister, threatened to kill him and beat him with hands, fists and knife. Accused Subhash Sahu, Sanjay Soni stabbed the injured Tarun Sahu with a knife. The accused beat Tarun Kumar with the intention of killing him. 4. It was done in Balodabazar. Aditya Yadav was also taken to the District Hospital Balodabazar for examination but he ran away from the hospital. The police prepared a site map of the incident site and got the map of the incident site prepared from the Patwari. The police seized a piece of stone from Shailesh Sahu from the incident site. The police seized the blood stained shirt and pants worn by Tarun Sahu at the time of the incident. The dying declaration of Tarun Sahu was recorded. Tarun Sahu was taken to Narayana Hospital Raipur for treatment where he was treated. 6 5. Statement memorandum of accused Subhash Sahu, 2.3 Sanjay Soni, Dhananjay alias Dhannu Mandavi was written by the police and on their information, iron punch, T-shirt was recovered from accused Dhananjay alias Dhannu Mandavi, knife and T-shirt, lower, pants with blood from accused Subhash Sahu, and buttoned knife and the thing worn at the time of incident from accused Sanjay Soni. The shirt and pants worn by the accused Kushal Sahu at the time of the incident were seized. A query report was obtained from the doctor regarding the injuries of Tarun Sahu. The accused were arrested by the police, statements of witnesses were recorded. Chemical examination of the seized properties was conducted by the police. 6. After completing the investigation, the police presented the final report in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar on 08.08.2019, from where the case was received by this court on 20.08.2019 on surrender. 7. When the charges were framed against the accused by the predecessor under sections 148, 294 (2 times), 506 part-II (2 times), 323 read with section 149, 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25 (1-B), (b) of the Arms Act, the accused denied having committed the crime. 7 8. In the trial under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused pleaded innocence and claimed to have been falsely implicated. 9. After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record including the evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as described above. Hence, appeals. 10. Learned counsel for the respective appellants would submit that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not proved the case by independent and reliable witnesses. The trial Court erred in ignoring that the complainant Sailesh Sahu (P.W.1) and victim Aditya Yadav (P.W.2) have clearly not supported the story of the prosecution and not made any specific allegation against the appellant/accused. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the complainant had made false complaint against the appellant/accused and other co- accused because of previous dispute and subsequently he has not supported the story of the prosecution. The learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate that the complainants have concocted the story and made the false 8 complaint against the appellant/accused and no case U/s 147 & 307 R/w 149 of I.P.C. is made out against the appellant/accused and also failed to appreciate that in support of alleged offence the prosecution failed to produce any medical evidence to establish that the injury has been caused by the appellant and because of the same the life of victim was in danger. The trial court convicted the accused/appellant without appreciating the material available on the record and convicted the appellant/accused in absence of any corroborative and material evidence regarding his involvement in the alleged crime. It is therefore prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.05.2025, passed by the Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), in Session Case No.- 56/2019, in the interest of justice. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellants, supported the impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 9 13. Injured - Tarun Sahu (PW-3) has stated in examination-in-chief that on 13-05-2019, at approximately 9:45 pm, an argument was taking place between accused Vishal Thakur and Aditya Yadav behind the society near Nagar Bhavan Baloda Bazar. He went there and told them that a wedding was taking place at his house, so don't fight here. Accused Tande, alias Sanjay Soni, then told him, "What do you mean, go away?" and began shoving him. Meanwhile, accused Tande, alias Sanjay Soni, pulled out a knife and stabbed him four times in the stomach and in the chest. Accused Subhash hit him with a stone. He fell unconscious due to the injuries. From the scene, his friend Toran Sahu took him to the District Hospital Baloda Bazar for treatment. He received first aid there, and then he was taken to Narayan Hospital, Raipur, where he remained for 18 days. 14. In Para – 3, he has stated that when he tried to intervene, the accused Vishal, Dhannu, Subhash Sahu, Sanjay alias Tande, Kushal Sahu, acting in unison, assaulted him with their hands and fists, abusing him and threatening to kill him. Accused Dhannu was holding the punch at the time of the incident. Tande alias Subhash stabbed him with a knife, and accused Patwari alias Kushal Sahu hit him on the head with a brick. It is correct to say that the accused attacked him with the intention of killing him. 10 15. In cross-examination (Para – 9), he has deposed that on the date of the incident, he had no dispute, fight or quarrel with the accused Vishal at the place of the incident. There was no physical altercation. It is incorrect to say that accused Vishal was alone at the scene. He voluntarily stated that accused Vishal was present with all the other accused. It is true that accused Vishal is the nephew of accused Dhannu. It is incorrect to claim that he have a long-standing grudge against accused Dhannu, due to which he have falsely implicated his nephew, accused Vishal. 16. Dr. Abhijeet Banerjee (PW-11) who posted in the District Hospital – Balodabazar examined the injured – Tarun Kumar Sahu has stated that on 13.05.2019 at 11.50 pm, he was found the following injuries on his body - (i) There was a cut and torn injury of 2 cm x 2 cm size and 5 to 6 cm deep in the right side of the abdomen of the injured person below the ribs. (ii) The injured person had a cut and torn injury of 2 cm x 2 cm size and 7 to 8 cm deep in the lumbar region on the left side of his back. (iii) The injured person had a lacerated wound on the back of his head measuring 1 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm. Injuries No. 1 and 2 of the injured were caused by hard and sharp objects and were of serious nature. 17. He further stated that due to serious injuries of the injured, a 11 referral was made to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur. In this regard, he has submitted Exhibit P-27. 18. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha (PW-12) who posted at NHMMI Narayana Hospital, Raipur examined to injured Tarun Kumar Sahu has stated that Injured Tarun Kumar Sahu was admitted to NHMMI Narayana Hospital, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) on 14.05.2019 and was discharged on 27.05.2019. He has brought complete documents of the treatment of injured Tarun Kumar Sahu. Injured Tarun Kumar Sahu had two stab wounds on his stomach, one stab wound below the armpit on the left side of the chest and one stab wound on his left hand. A CT scan of the abdomen of injured Tarun Kumar Sahu was done in which a rupture of the intestine inside the stomach was found. A hole was found in the stomach and there was also an injury in the liver. Upon operation of Tarun Kumar Sahu, bleeding and intestinal leakage were found in his intestine. The discharge summary is in original Exhibit P-31. 19. Thus, from the statement of the injured/victim (PW-3), Dr. Abhijeet Banerjee (PW-11) and Dr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha (PW-12), it is crystal clear that it is the main accused of this case is Sanjay Soni who pulled out a knife and stabbed the injured/victim – Tarun 12 Sahu four times in the stomach and in the chest as a result of which he suffered severe injuries on his stomach, one stab wound below the armpit on the left side of the chest and one stab wound on his left hand. On perusal of the medical report, it reveals that the CT scan of the abdomen of injured Tarun Kumar Sahu was done in which a rupture of the intestine inside the stomach was found. A hole was found in the stomach and there was also an injury in the liver. Upon operation of injured - Tarun Kumar Sahu, bleeding and intestinal leakage were found in his intestine. 20. Now, the question is, whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of IPC? 21. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 307 of the IPC which states as under: “307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life-convicts.—When any person offending under this section is under sentence of 13 imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death. 22. The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC are: (i) that the death of a human being was attempted; (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as: (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excused for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. 23. The Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh and others, (1988) 4 SCC 551, has held that under Section 307 of the IPC what the Court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the provision. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being 14 established, there can be no offence of “attempt to murder”. Under Section 307 IPC the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. It has been further held that the nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. 24. Similarly, in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kashirao and others, (2003) 10 SCC 434, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that for the application of Section 307 of the IPC, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained, the manner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 of the IPC. It has been observed by their Lordships in para 21 of the report as under: - “21. In offence under Section 307 all the ingredients of the offence of murder are present except the death of the victim. For the application of Section 307, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained, the manner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 15 IPC. But since sentence and fine have been maintained, alteration of conviction notwithstanding no modification of sentence need be made.” 25. The Supreme Court in the matter of Parsuram Pandey and others Vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 13 SCC 189, has also held that to constitute an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, two ingredients of the offence must be present: (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and (b) the doing of an act towards it. It has been held in paragraph 15 of the report as under :- “15. To constitute an offence under Section 307 two ingredients of the offence must be present: (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commissioof murder; and (b) the doing of an act towards it. For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or the knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. The section clearly contemplates an act which is done with intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. In the absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of Section 307, there can be no offence “of attempt to murder”. Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence, as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other factors. ...” 26. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jage Ram and 16 others Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366, has laid down the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and held as under:- “12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder; and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given, etc. 14. Having regard to the weapon used for causing the head injuries to Sukhbir, nature of injures, situs of the injury and the severity of the blows, the courts below recorded concurrent findings convicting the second appellant under Section 307 IPC. In our considered view, the conviction of the second appellant Rajbir @ Raju under Section 307 IPC is unassailable.” 27. Thus, taking a cumulative note of the ocular and medical evidence collected by the prosecution; looking to the nature of the weapon 17 used (knife), manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury has been inflicted, keeping in mind the medical report of the doctor (Ex.P-27 & 31), and taking into consideration the aforesaid judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the findings recorded by the trial Court convicting the accused/appellant under Section 307 IPC are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and deserve to be and are hereby maintained. 28. As regards sentence, it is evident from the records that assault made on the spur of moment without premeditation, on grave and sudden provocation/oral altercation, the appellants -Kushal Sahu, Vishal Thakur & Shubhash Sahu had caused injury to the injured/victim and involved in crime in question. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 04-04 years imposed by the trial Court appears to excessively on the higher side and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on appellants -Kushal Sahu, Vishal Thakur & Shubhash Sahu is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 02-02 years. However, sentence of fine awarded by trial Court is hereby affirmed. 18 29. The role attributed to appellant – Sanjay Soni (in CRA No.1817/2025) is serious in nature. The sentence imposed by the learned trial Court warrants no interference. While determining sentence, the Court must consider the nature of the injuries, the weapon used, the circumstances of the occurrence, and the intention of the accused. The trial Court has, therefore, rightly convicted and sentenced to appellant – Sanjay Soni. 30. Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2025 filed by appellant – Kushal Sahu, Criminal Appeal No.1092 of 2025 filed by appellant – Vishal Thakur, Criminal Appeal No.1118 of 2025 filed by appellant – Subhash Sahu are partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. While Criminal Appeal No.1817 of 2025 filed by appellant – Sanjay Soni is hereby dismissed. Rest of order / direction passed by the trial Court shall remain intact. Ordered accordingly. 31. The appellants are reported to be in jail. They shall serve out the sentence as modified above. 32. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the 19 same on the appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if so advised, with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 33. The trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant