1 2025:CGHC:55847 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 25 of 2005 1 - Harihar Das @ Kali Das (Died) (Abated). 2 - Satish (Died) (Abated). 3 - Manoj S/o Jeevan Lal Rathore Aged About 22 Years R/o Gram Seoni, P.S. Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate For Respondent / State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 17/11/2025 1. Since appellants No.1 & 2 have died during pendency of instant appeal and this appeal has been abated against them, therefore, this judgment is pronounced pertaining to the appellant No.3 -Manoj only. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2005 passed by the learned Upper Sessions Judge, Janjgir, Sessions Division Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (henceforth referred to as ‘trial Court) in Sessions Case No.194/2004, whereby each of the appellants/accused have been convicted and sentenced in the following RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.11.20 13:15:30 +0530 2 manner :- Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 324/34, IPC RI for 6 months Rs.500/- RI for 1 month 323/34, IPC RI for 3 months Rs.300/- RI for 15 days 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, appellant -Manoj and other two appellants assaulted victims Jagdish Yadav, Premsheel and Sitaram by means of wooden club and knife and thereby aforesaid victims had sustained injuries. On being report lodged by injured complainant Jagdish Yadav (PW-2), an FIR (Ex.P-4) bearing Crime No. 31 / 04 was registered against the appellants/accused persons under Section 307 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), medical examination of injured victims namely; Jagdish Yadav, Sitaram and Premsheel was conducted by Dr. Kashi Prasad Rathore (PW-8) and their MLC reports are Ex.P-1, Ex.P- 2 & Ex.P-3 respectively, the appellants were arrested, the statements of witnesses were recorded, knife and wooden club were seized from respective accused persons vide seizure memo (Ex.P-17 & Ex.P-18 respectively). After due investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 307, 34 of the IPC was filed against all three accused persons. 4. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 307/34 & 323/34 of the IPC and the same was read and explained to the appellants/ accused persons, who abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the guilt of appellants / accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents, statements of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which, they denied all the incriminating circumstances 3 appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution claiming themselves to be innocent and falsely implicated. No defence witness has been examined in support of the appellants / accused persons. 6. After considering the evidence available on record, learned trial Court acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, but convicted them under Sections 323/34 & 324/34 of the IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submits that he is not pressing this appeal as regards conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He further submits that alleged incident has occurred in the year 2004. Both the parties are resident of same village and the dispute erupted all of a sudden between them. He next submits that appellant Manoj has already remained in jail from 04.02.2004 to 16.04.2004 i.e., 2 months & 12 days, therefore, he prays that the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant Manoj may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. To this proposition of counsel for the accused/appellant, learned State Counsel supported the impugned judgment and prayed for passing appropriate order. 10. Though counsel for the appellant has not pressed conviction part, but having considered deposition of all three victims namely; Jagdish (PW-2), Premsheel (PW-10) & Sitaram (PW-11) as well as the deposition of Dr. Kashi Prasad Rathore (PW-8), who proved that all three victims had 4 sustained simple injuries, therefore, conviction part of the appellant Manoj for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 of the IPC is upheld. 11. So far as the sentence part is concerned, the appellant Manoj has already served the jail sentence from 04.02.2004 to 16.04.2004 i.e., 2 months & 12 days. Both the parties are resident of same village. The dispute pertains to the year 2004. That time appellant Manoj was 22 years old. No criminal antecedent has been proved against him and he has already remained in jail for about 2 months & 12 days, therefore, this court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in sending appellant in further detention and ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 12. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellant Manoj is maintained and imposition of punishment of fine is also maintained, but jail sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e., 04.02.2004 to 16.04.2004. 13. The appellant Manoj is said to be on bail. He needs not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 14. Record of the concerned trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and needful, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar