1 2025:CGHC:60561 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 183 of 2010 1. Ranjit Rohidas, S/o S/o Manik Rohidas, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village- Uttar Danga, P.S. Gosaba, District-South 24 Pargana (West Bangal) 2. Jainuddin S/o Julmat Shaikh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village- Bagbagan, P.S. Gosaba, District-South 24 Pargana (West Bangal) ... Appellants versus • State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station- G.R.P. Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... State _________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, PL. ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 12.12.2025 1. Vide order dated 04.12.2025, this Court has directed the Jail Superintendent of Police, Raigarh regarding the status report of appellant No. 2- Jainuddin. 2. In compliance of the said order, learned State counsel submits that appellant No. 2/Jainuddin is reported to has been released from jail on 31.01.2015 after completion of the entire jail sentence and in this regard she has produced the report of Jail Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur (C.G.), which is annexed therein. 3. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 29.01.2010 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 61/2008, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 307/34 of IPC R.I. for 10 years, with fine amount of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 02 months. 4. As per case of the prosecution, 29.07.2007 when the appellants and other co-accused persons were traveling on the train i.e., Howrah Ahmedabad Express from Gujarat and when the train came in between Raigarh to Kharsia, the accused persons with an intention to commit murder of the Devrat Mandal, assaulted him with hands and fists due to which he lost control and fell on the ground from the door of the running train and sustained grievous injuries and admitted in the Kharsia Hospital for treatment. The father of the injured Deverat Mandal lodged written report to the Police Station- Gosaba District- 24 South Pargana, West Bengal regarding the incident and on 03.06.2007, the Police Station- Gosaba registered the offence and the matter was sent to JMFC. Thereafter, it was found that the offence has been committed under the jurisdiction of Gujarat and thereafter it was again found that the incident had been taken place under the jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh under the police station GRP, Raigarh. The matter was reported to the Police Station- GRP Raigarh and Crime No. 24/2007 was registered against the accused persons for the said offence. The prosecution after completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet 3 before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge- sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused having abjured guilt were subjected to trial. 5. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 07 witnesses to prove its case against the appellant. Statement of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case and pleaded their innocence and false implication in this case. However, no witness adduced by the accused in their defence. 6. The learned trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has acquitted the co-accused persons of the aforesaid charge and has convicted and sentenced the present appellants as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of the case. The learned Trial Court failed to consider that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and learned trial Court has grossly erred in holding the appellant guilty under Section 307 of IPC. Learned trial Court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in accordance with the established principles of law relating to appreciation of evidence, the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures, learned trial Court has not 4 appreciated the statement of doctor. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC are not proved, therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. He next submits appellant No. 2/Jainuddin has undergone his whole jail sentence and he has been released from the concerned jail. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of appellant No.1/ Ranjit Rohidas is proper, then, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2007, the appellant is now aged more than 35 years; the appellant remained in jail for more than 09 months and he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail, he is facing the lis since 2007 i.e. for about more than 15 years and therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 10. It is evident from record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the appellants and other co-accused persons for offence under 5 Section Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court has acquitted the co-accused persons namely Dinanath Sardar and Hamid Ali of the aforesaid charge, but convicted and sentenced the present appellants for offence under Section 307/34 of IPC. 11. Devrat Mandal (PW-02) has stated that on the date of incident, when he was traveling on Howrah Ahmadabad Express train with other persons including the accused persons and going to his home Kharsia from Ahmadabad, at that time one co-accused Ranjit had snatched his wallet by kicking him on his stomach, thereafter he went towards the door and stood at the door of the train, while he was standing at the door, he was kicked by Jainuddin, on account of which, he fell from the running train, due to which sustained injuries upon his body. 12. PW-1 P.K. Das (Station Master) and PW-5 Babulal who were rescued the injured person Devrat Mandal from the railway track and took him to Kharsia hospital for treatment. 13. PW- 07 Dr. Shobharam Banjare had examined the injured Devrat Mandal (PW-1) on 01.03.2007 and he found crush injury on his head and multiple injuries on both hands and he referred him to Surgical specialist and Radiologist who were from Raigarh and Discharge Ticket is Ex. P/7. 14. Learned trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence of all the witnesses, including medical evidence, thereby rightly convicted appellant No. 1- Ranjit Rohidas for offence under Section 307 of IPC. Thus, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality or irregularity in the 6 findings as recorded by learned Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant No.1. So, the conviction of the appellant No. 1 is hereby affirmed. In this case, it is clear from the report of concerned Jail Superintendent of Police that appellant No. 2/Jainuddin after completing the entire jail sentence has been set at liberty, therefore, no further order regarding his release etc., is needed. 15. As regards sentence part of appellant No. 1- Ranjit Rohidas, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2007, the appellant is now aged more than 35 years; the appellant remained in jail for more than 09 months and he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail, he is facing the lis since 2007 and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 16. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant No. 1 under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 17. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7 18. 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/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL