1 2025:CGHC:52361 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 364 of 2025 1 - Harish Dewangan And Anr S/o Arun Kumar Dewangan Aged About 29 Years R/o - Nayapara, Ward No. 11 Sirgitti, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Koushal Dewangan S/o Arun Kumar Dewangan Aged About 23 Years R/o - Nayapara, Ward No. 11 Sirgitti, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Panel Lawyer. For Complainant : Mr. Manish Kumar Sahu, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 27/10/2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the appellants against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.01.2025 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 134 of 2022, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced for RI for ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.11.06 11:20:51 +0530 2 05 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for 03 months. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.12.2021, the Station House officer, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur received an information that on 26.12.2021 at about 11:00 p.m. the victim Ajay Sahu was being assaulted by Harish Chandra Dewangan and Koushal Dewangan on the old enmity, who was admitted in SIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for his treatment. The police has inquired from the victim Ajay Sahu who disclosed that 10 – 15 years back the sister of one Vishnu Dewangan was abducted by one Santosh Yadav for which Vishnu Dewangan raised a quarrel with the father of the present appellants and committed marpeet with him, for that reason the appellants having grudge against the Vishnu Dewangan. He being the friend of Vishnu Dewangan, the appellants have also harassed him. On 26.12.2021 when they returning from hotel, on the way near the Durga Mandir they stopped them and when the victim Ajay Sahu after getting down from the motorcycle asked Vishnu Dewangan why he taking u-turn of his motorcycle, Vishnu Dewangan ran away from the place and the appellants assaulted him by lathi by which he received grievous injuries on his hand, legs and head. He lost his consciousness and when he regain his conscious, he was found himself in the hospital. Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/12 and FIR Ex.P/34 was recorded by the Police against the appellants for the offence under Section 294, 307, 34 of IPC. During the investigation the clothes of the victim has been seized vide seizure Ex.P/11. Spot map Ex.P/1 was prepared by the Police. The appellants were arrested and based on memorandum statement of Harish Dewangan Ex.P/2, one bamboo club has been seized from him vide seizure memo Ex.P/4 and on the memorandum statement of Koushal Dewangan Ex.P/3, a bamboo club has been seized from him vide seizure memo Ex.P/5. 3 3. The victim was being treated at CIMS Hospital and his Bed Head ticket and medical report has been obtained by the police which is Ex.P/18. A query was also raised about nature of injuries of the victim and the doctor has opined that the injuries found on the body of the victim was grievous in nature and death might have been possible, if he would not have been treated in time. As per the medical report of the victim Ex.P/18, the victim was suffer by headache bodyache and bleeding from the injured side, lacerated wound was found over occipital region which was in size of 4x2x1cm and his condition was semi-conscious. He was admitted in the hospital and referred for further treatment to expert opinion. On his CT scan report, fracture of bilateral nasal bone was seen and in x-ray report the fracture noted over the distal aspect of bilateral ulna bone, fracture noted over the lower half of right tibia and fracture seen over the right second and third metatarsal bone and the report is Ex.P/11. 4. The spot map Ex.P/8 was prepared by the patwari. The seized clothes and clubs were sent for its chemical examination to regional FSL, Bilaspur from where report Ex.P/44 was received and blood has been found on the clothes of the victim and clubs seized from the appellants. 5. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur for the offence under Section 307, 294, 34 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, from where the same has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 6. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellants for the offence under Section 294, 307/34 of IPC. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 4 7. In order to prove the charge against the appellants the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstance that appears against them, pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict the appellants for the alleged offence. He would further submits that there is no grievous injuries on the vital part of the body of the victim which attracts the offence of Section 307 of IPC. The victim received injuries on his head and legs for which the appellants, at the most, are liable to be punished for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. He would further submits that there are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. There was no intentionally assault upon the victim as there was no enmity with him. The appellants wants to target his friend Vishnu Dewangan but he ran away from the spot and then the assault was made upon the victim. There was no intention to commit murder of the victim and there is no attempt to commit murder. He would also submits that during the pendency of the appeal the appellants and the victim have entered into compromise and now the victim does not want to press his complaint further. Although the offence of Section 307 is not compoundable but the effect of compromise between the parties may be taken for consideration of the sentence awarded to the appellants. He would also submits that although the offence under Section 307 of IPC does not provided any minimum sentence. However, the offence of the appellants, if 5 any, does not falls under Section 307 but comes under Section 324 of IPC which is compoundable and taking into consideration the fact of compromise between the appellants and the victim, the offence may be compounded and the appellants may be set free. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and have submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of the victim as well as other witnesses are fully supported the prosecution case. The injuries found on the body of the victim has been duly corroborated for the medical evidence. Numerous grievous injuries have been found on the body of the victim including injury on his head. Even otherwise, the nature of injury is not relevant for the offence of Section 307 of IPC but the intention coupled with some overt act is relevant for the same. In the present case the appellants though wanted to target Vishunu Dewangan, however, when he ran away from the spot the present victim was being assaulted by the appellants. He would further submits that the change of the targeted person does not absolve the appellants from their act or dilute the nature of offence. Looking to the number of fractures on the body of the victim and head injury, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. He would also submits that the offence of Section 307 of IPC is not compoundable, therefore, no benefit can be extended to the appellants even if the victim has mutually compounded the offence with the appellants. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the learned trial Court. 11. In the present case PW-6 Ajay Sahu is the victim and FIR has been registered on his instance. He stated in his evidence that on 26.12.2021 at 6 about 11:00 p.m. when he along with his friend Visshu Dewangan (in the documents, it is Vishnu Dewangan) returning from the Hotel after taking dinner, the appellants attacked upon him by preparing themselves. Since Visshu Dewangan ran away from the place, the appellants attacked him by rod and stick. There was previous enmity between the Visshu Dewangan and the appellants on the issue that the sister of Visshu Dewangan was eloped with Santosh Yadav. At the time of incident, along with the appellants, Sanjay Sahu and Heeralal Sahu were also with them and they too have assaulted him. He regain his consciousness in the Hospital. In cross-examination though he admitted that before the present incident there was no quarrel between him and the appellants but he remained firm in saying that on the date of incident the appellants assaulted him. He clearly identified the appellants as assailants. Nothing could be extracted by the defence from this witness so that his evidence can be disbelieved. 12. PW-10, Vishnu @ Vishal Dewangan is the person who was with the victim at the time of incident. He stated in his evidence that on the date of incident when they were returning from the Hotel after having their dinner, on the way the appellants along with the other persons stopped them, started abusing and assaulting them. The present appellants were having stick in their hand by which they have assaulted upon them. He ran away from the place by fear and they have assaulted the victim Ajay Sahu and Ajay Sahu received injuries on his head, both the hands and legs by which he went in unconsciousness and thereafter the appellants fled away from the spot. He informed elder brother of the victim through phone and then he was being taken to hospital. 13. In cross-examination, he stated that he saw the incident assaulting the victim by the appellants have been disclosed in his police statement and if it is not there he could not tell the reason. From perusal of his police statement 7 Ex.P/32, it transpires that he is the eye-witness to the incident and have also stated in his police statement that he saw the incident that the appellants were assaulting the victim by lathi and there is no any discrepancies found in both these statements of this witness which makes his evidence doubtful or affect the credibility of the evidence of the victim PW-6. This witness was also cross-examined on the point of his enmity with the appellants on the issue of the marriage of his sister. However, this Court does not find any ground to disbelieve his evidence. 14. PW-9, Dr. Rizwan Siddiqui, is the Medical Officer posted at Casuality Department, CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur he stated in his evidence that on 27.12.2021 at about 12:25. The victim Ajay Sahu was being taken to Hospital and after admitting him in the Hospital, he informed the incident to the police vide memo Ex.P/16. At the time of his admission in the Hospital he was semi- conscious and complaining pain on his head and all other parts of the body having injury over it. One lacerated wound was found on the occipital region of his head and he was referred to surgery orthopedic surgeon and his admission sheet is Ex.P/17. He also proved the MLC report Ex.P/18 and query report Ex.P/19. Nothing in his cross-examination which makes his evidence doubtful that no injuries were found on the body of the victim. 15. PW-7, Dr. Nishant Dubey is the Assistant Professor, CIMS Bilaspur. He stated in his evidence that the Sirgitti Police has raised a query with respect to the injuries of the victim and he gave his opinion Ex.P/13 to the police stated therein that ulna bone of both the hands of the victim, right tibia bone and second and third metatorsal of right leg was fractured. The injuries are grievous in nature and death might have been possible if it would not have been treated in time. In cross-examination he stuck in his deposition and stated that since he is an orthopedic specialist, therefore, he gave his opinion. He further stated that the fracture of hand and legs bone was not 8 fatal to life but the head injury and other injuries found on the body of the victim was fatal to life. 16. PW-3, Dr. Ashish Sharma is also a Medical Officer at CIMS Bilaspur who gave the CT scan and x-ray report Ex.P/11 and found the fracture of bilateral nasal bone, fracture of distal aspect of ulna bone, fracture of lower half of tibia and fracture of right and third metatarsal bone. Nothing could be extracted from this witness also to disbelieve the evidence except that he admitted in his cross-examination that the injuries may be caused by the accident. When the victim PW-6 as well as his friends Vishnu @ Vishal Dewangan PW-10 have duly supported the prosecution case and identified the appellants as the assailants who caused grievous injuries to the victim. As per the medical evidence available in the record the injuries found on the body of the victim was grievous in nature including the fracture of various bones, it cannot be said that the appellants have not caused any grievous injuries to the victim or they were not intended to commit his murder. Even if the appellants have targeted PW-10 Vishnu Dewangan and he fled away, the result would be the same even if the assault could have been made upon either Vishnu Dewangan or the present victim Ajay Sahu. 17. To attract the offence under Section 307 of IPC, it is only intention coupled with some overt act is to be seen and not the nature of injuries. In the matter of “Ghulam Mustafa v. State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand)” 2016 (15) SCC 752, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- “8 . To justify a conviction Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code the Court has to see whether the act was done with the intention to commit murder and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Although the nature of injuries caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of weapons used, parts of the body where the injuries were caused, severity of the blows given and motive, etc.” 9 18. In the matter of “Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand” 2004 (12) SCC 220, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- “11. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature, extent or character of the injury or whether such injury is sufficient to actually causing death are really factors which are wholly irrelevant for adjudging the culpability under Section 307 IPC. The Section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. Therefore, it is not correct to acquit an accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.” 19. From personal of the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court, this Court finds that it is a very elaborate and well-reasoned judgment after considering the entire aspect of the case and due appreciation of evidence available on record. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC. 20. As submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, during the pendency of the appeal, the appellants and the victim are said to have compromised the matter. An application under Section 359(5) of the BNSS, 2023 have also been filed by the parties on 22.09.2025, supported by the affidavit of the victim Ajay Sahu. 21. This Court has directed the victim to get their statement recorded before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court vide order dated 27.10.2025 and in compliance thereof the statement of the victim has been recorded and he reiterated that he has compromised the matter with the appellants. The victim was also represented by his counsel Mr. Manish Kumar Sahu. 10 22. Section 307 of IPC is a non-compoundable offence. The offence which are in the list provided in Section 359 of BNSS, 2023 can only be compounded. 23. In the matter of Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another 2020 (18) SCC 777 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Para -5 as under: 5. Section 307 IPC is a non-compoundable offence. No permission can be granted to record the compromise between the parties. In Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P.2, the Supreme Court of India has held that in a non-compoundable offence the compromise entered into between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind for considering the quantum of sentence. In paras 13 and 14 of the judgment in Ishwar Singh² this Court has held as under: (SCC p. 670) "13. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P.5, this Court, while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellant-accused to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable. But it was also stated that in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, such offence was ordered to be compounded. 14. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind.” 24. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of the offence which is non-compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside the statutory provisions. However, the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants deserves consideration that while imposing the substantive sentence, the fact of compromise between the parties is indeed and relevant circumstances which the Court may keep in mind. While sentencing the accused for an offence the relevant consideration have been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajabala Vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2016 (1) SCC 463 in paragraph 1 & 2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “1. In Gopal Singh v. State of Uttrakahand[1], while focusing on the gravity of the crime and the concept of proportionality as regards the punishment, the Court had observed:- "18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the 11 principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. A punishment should not be disproportionately excessive. The concept of proportionality allows a significant discretion to the Judge but the same has to be guided by certain principles. In certain cases, the nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the effect - propensity to become a social threat or nuisance, and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum bearing in mind the nature of the offence, the relationship between the parties and attractability of the doctrine of bringing the convict to the value- based social mainstream may be the guiding factors. Needless to emphasise, these are certain illustrative aspects put forth in a condensed manner.We may hasten to add that there can neither be a straitjacket formula nor a solvable theory in mathematical exactitude. It would be dependent on the facts of the case and rationalised judicial discretion. Neither the personal perception of a Judge nor self-adhered moralistic vision nor hypothetical apprehensions should be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion vested in a court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed and other concomitant factors which we have indicated hereinbefore and also have been stated in a number of pronouncements by this Court. On such touchstone, the sentences are to be imposed. The discretion should not be in the realm of fancy. It should be embedded in the conceptual essence of just punishment." [Emphasis supplied] 2. Seven years prior to that, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat [2], it has been held that:- "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be-as it should be-a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law, and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N.[3]" 12 [Emphasis supplied] And again:- "The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal"." 25. In the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in Para 9 as follows:- “9.Western jurisprudes and sociologists. from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samuel Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : “The laws of England are written in blood”. Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it'. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Center, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education'. If it is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration. that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed. that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by reculturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and the goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore, consider a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts. since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : “If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.” 26. In the view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the parties are residing at the same place, the victim has already compromised the matter with the appellants, the appellants were on bail during the trial and presently they are in jail from the date of the judgment of the learned trial Court i.e. from 29.01.2025 and thereby the appellants have already undergone more than 10 months, it would be deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellants for the period already undergone the appellants instead of RI for 05 years. 13 27. Therefore, by affirming the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, their sentence is reduced for the period already undergone by them. The fine sentence and default stipulation awarded to the appellants shall remain in tact. 28. With the aforesaid observation/modification, the appeal is partly allowed. 29. The appellants are reported to be in jail since 29.01.2025. They be released forthwith if not required in any other case subject to compliance of the fine sentence and default stipulation. 30. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok