1 2025:CGHC:18908 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 781 of 2009  Kalyan Panika, S/o Shri Mohan Panika, aged about 40 years, R/o village Mandalpara, Baikunthpur, P.S. Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) ... Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through : District Magistrate, District Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Mahendra Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment On Board 25/04/2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.10.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koriya (Baikunthpur) (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.25/2006 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 326 IPC & sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.500/-, plus default stipulation. 2 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 01.10.2005 between 9.30 AM to 5.30 PM, complainant Ram Sajivan was present in Middle School, Sankul Kendra, Mahalpara for training session related to teaching students under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. At evening time, the complainant left for village Basti to drop teacher Sushila Das and while returning on motorcycle he went to rented house of Goutam Prasad Dubey and from where they had to go to Sonhat but they started talking there and Pankaj Kumar Sahu and Sanjay Kumar Sahu also joined them there. The accused/appellant came to complainant from his house and told him that he has some work with him, to which, complainant said as to what work has he with him and in the meanwhile, the accused/appellant took out a knife from the front pocket of his full pants and stabbed him on the left side of his stomach with intention to kill him, due to which he sustained injury in his abdomen and blood was oozing. Complainant Ramsajivan Sahu pulled the knife to save himself from the attack, due to which the middle finger of his right hand got injured. Gautam Prasad Dubey intervened and snatched the knife from the accused and thereafter, the accused/appellant fled from the spot. Pankaj Kumar Sahu was taking complainant Ramsajivan Sahu to Baikunthpur police station on his motorcycle. On the way, his motorcycle 3 got punctured then Gajju alias Mahendra Singh met him there, who brought complainant Ramsajivan Sahu to the police station on his motorcycle where complainant Ramsajivan Sahu lodged the FIR of the incident at 8.30 pm and offence under Section 307 of IPC was registered against the accused/appellant. On being presented by Goutam Prasad, the police seized knife used in the commission of crime by the accused/appellant. Clothes of the complainant stained with blood were seized. The complainant was sent for medical examination to District Hospital, Baikunthpur where he remained hospitalized from 01.10.2005 to 13.10.2005. 3. After completing the usual investigation, charge sheet under Sections 307 IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act Act was filed against the accused/appellant before the jurisdictional Court. 4. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court framed the charges against accused/appellant under Sections 307 IPC. 4 and 25 (1-B) of Arms Act. 5. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and 4 false implication. 6. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, while acquitting the accused/appellant from the offence under Section 25(1-b)(B) of Arms Act and convicted him under Section 326 of IPC instead Section 307 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law3 and on facts and it is contrary to the evidence available on record, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. The impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is perverse to the facts and circumstances of the case and the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in accordance with the established principal of law relating to appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has absolutely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by adducing trustworthy and cogent evidence. The eye- witnesses to the incident have not supported the case of the prosecution and they denied to have seen the appellant inflicting any blow to the complainant and move of the offence has not been proved by the prosecution. Thus, the 5 prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. In alternate, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident took place in the year 2005 i.e. about 20 years back, the accused/appellant has already remained in jail for 117 days, the appellant at the time of incident was aged around 40 years and by now he is aged about 56 years and no useful purpose would served in again sending him back to jail, therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the learned State counsel that conviction of the accused/appellant is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. The appeal is without any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that it has framed charges under Sections 307 of IPC, 25(1-b) (B) of Arms Act against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellant from the offence under Section 25(1-b)(b) of Arms Act, convicted him under Section 326 of 6 IPC. 11. Complainant (PW-13) has categorically stated that 01.10.2005, he was present in Middle School, Sankul Kendra, Mahalpara for training session related to teaching students under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. After the sessions got over, the complainant left for village Basti to drop teacher Sushila Das and while returning on motorcycle he went to house of Goutam Prasad Dubey and from where they had to go to Sonhat. He has also stated that when he reached the house of Goutam Prasad Dubey, he was standing near the door and they both started talking there and Pankaj Kumar Sahu and Sanjay Kumar Sahu also joined them there. This witness has also stated that at the relevant time, the accused/appellant came to him and took him away, to which, he said as to what work has he with him and in the meanwhile, the accused/appellant took out a knife from the front pocket of his full pants and stabbed him on the left side of his stomach with intention to kill him, due to which he sustained injury in his abdomen. When accused/appellant was to give another blow, complainant pulled the knife by right hand to save himself from the attack, due to which the middle finger of his right hand got injured. He has further stated that Gautam Prasad Dubey intervened and snatched the knife from the accused and 7 thereafter, the accused/appellant fled from the spot. This witness has also went on to state that after the incident Pankaj Kumar Sahu took him to Baikunthpur police station on his motorcycle but on the way, his motorcycle got punctured then Gajju alias Mahendra Singh met him there, who brought complainant Ramsajivan Sahu and Goutam Dubey to the police station on his motorcycle where complainant Ramsajivan Sahu lodged the report of the incident. He has also stated that the police took him to Community Health Center, Baikunthpur, where he got treated by doctor. 12. Other witnesses namely Sushila Das (PW-1), Santosh Kumar Tamrakar (PW-4), Sanjay Sahu (PW-6), Gyanwardhak Dubey (PW-7) and Mahendra Singh (PW-14) have not supported the prosecution case and prosecution has declared them hostile and cross-examined them but they denied all suggestions of the prosecution. 13. The evidence of complainant (PW-13) is well corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Rameshwar Sharma (PW-8) who medically examined the complainant and found stab injury of 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 3.5 cm in depth on left side of abdomen with active bleeding and abrasion linear of 0.5 cm on right middle finger and gave his report under Ex.P-8. The doctor has advice for x-ray to ascertain the gravity of injury No.1, 8 and in x-ray report, fracture was found. 14. The defence has cross-examined these witness at length but has not been able to elicit anything in her cross- examination to discredit her testimony especially to the fact that the accused/appellant has not caused injuries to the complainant. 15. Close scrutiny of the evidence, in particular the statement of complainant PW-13 whose evidence is duly corroborated by the evidence of Dr. PW-8, makes it clear that on 01.10.2005, the accused/appellant came to complainant and gave knife blow on right side of his abdomen and when he was to give second blow, he pulled the knife which resulted cutting of middle finger of his hand. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt and held him guilty under Section 326 of IPC. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said findings recorded by the learned trial Court and therefore, the same is hereby affirmed. 16. The only question which arises for consideration by this Court is as to what would be the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon the accused/appellant. 17. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, 9 in particular the fact that the incident took place in the year 2005 i.e. about 20 years back, the accused/appellant has already remained in jail for 117 days, the appellant at the time of incident was aged around 40 years and by now he is aged around 56 years and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him back to jail at this stage, and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 326 of IPC, his jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. 19. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of BNSS. 20. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE