1 2025:CGHC:8760 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 207 of 2016 1 - Bhenu Soni S/o Anadi Soni Aged About 27 Years R/o Block No. 37, Housing Board Colony, Boriyakala, Post Office And Police Station Mana Camp, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For State : Shri S.S. Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 19.02.2025 1 The present appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.01.2016 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No.160/2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Conviction Sentence 27(2) of Arms Act RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for 1 month. 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for 1 month. 324 IPC RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.06.09 17:44:32 +0530 2 payment of fine, additional SI for 1 month. 294 IPC Fine amount of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional SI for 1 month. 2 Brief facts of the case are that, on 02.06.2014 the complainant Suresh Kumar Sahu, PW-1, had gone to his work along with his snack cart at about 6-7 PM. When he was engaged in selling snacks (Gupchup), at about 10 PM the appellant came there, ate Gupchup and asked for credit. When the complainant refused, the appellant started abusing him, took out a knife and stabbed on the abdomen of the complainant by which he received injuries and appellant fled away from the spot. Report Ex. P/1 was lodged by the complainant PW-1, Suresh Kumar Sahu and the offence under Section 307 IPC was registered against the appellant. The complainant was immediately taken to Hospital at Community Health Centre, Mana Camp, Raipur, where he was being treated at District Hospital, Raipur. PW-11, Dr. G.P. Dewangan, medically examined him and found one incised would with slight penetrative, bleeding present at central abdomen 1x0.2 cm into muscle deep caused by hard and sharp object and he was referred for expert opinion. His MLS report is Ex.P/12. Spot map Ex.P/2 was prepared by the police and P/4 by the Patwari. One Baniyan was seized from the complainant vide seizure memo Ex.P/3. The appellant was arrested on 07.06.2014 and his memorandum statement Ex.P/5 was recorded. Based on his memorandum statement, one knife was seized from his house vide seizure memo Ex.P/6. The said knife was sent for its query report to doctor who gave his report Ex.P/13 and opined that injuries found on the body of injured could have been caused by the said 3 weapon and death was possible due to excessive bleeding. For confirmation of blood on the said knife, it was referred to chemical examination to FSL. 3 The statement under Section 161 CrPC of witnesses were recorded. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Sections 307, 294 IPC and 25&27 of Arms Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge Raipur from where it was transferred to the trial Court for its trial. 4 The trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Sections 294, 307 IPC and 25&27 of Arms Act. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed trial. 5 In order to establish charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 CrPC of the appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and have submitted that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the offence. 6 After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court instead of Section 307 IPC, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 324 IPC. He was also convicted under Section 294 IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(b) and 27(2) of Arms Act. Hence this appeal. 7 Learned counsel for the appellant 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 him for the alleged 4 offence. The alleged knife has been seized on the memorandum statement of the appellant from his house and the prosecution has failed to prove that the said knife was used for assault in the public place. He would further submit that the notification dated 22.11.1974 issued by the State Govt. with respect to prohibition of arms would reflect that use of arms with certain measurement is prohibited in the public place whereas in the present case the said knife has been seized from the house of the appellant and it has not been proved by the witnesses that the same knife was used in commission of the offence. Although in the query report of doctor it has been opined that injuries found on the body of complainant would have been caused by the said knife, but there is no FSL report with respect to presence of blood on the said knife to prove that the same knife was used in public place and therefore in absence of any cogent and clinching evidence the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He would also submit that notification has not been proved by the prosecution. The appellant remained in jail for about one year and nine months. He has already undergone the sentence for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act and Sections 324 and 294 IPC, therefore, the appellant may be acquitted from the offence under Section 27(2) of the Arms Act. 8 On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The use of knife by the appellant in a public place has duly been proved by the witnesses. The said knife has been seized on the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant and thus it cannot be said 5 that the said knife was not used in public place. Further, the doctor has opined that injuries found on the body of injured could have been caused by the said knife and thus the use of prohibited arm in public place has also been proved which is in violation of notification issued in the year 1974. Thus, the offence under Section 27(2) of Arms Act has duly been proved by the prosecution. The other offences under Section 25 of Arms Act as well as Section 294 & 324 IPC have also been proved by the witnesses and the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant which needs no interference. 9 I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 10 The main grievance of the appellant in the present case is his conviction for the offence under Section 27(2) of Arms Act. Section 27 of Arms Act provides as under: “[27. Punishment for using arms, etc.--(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. (3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, [shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine.]” 11 The State Govt. vide its notification dated 22.11.1974 restricted possession or carrying of any sharp edged weapon having blade of 6 more than 6 inch in length or 2 inch in width and/or any type of spring knife only in the public place. 12 In the present case the injured Suresh Kumar Sahu, PW-1, have stated in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 10 PM when he was operating his snack cart, the appellant came there, asked him to give him snack (Gupchup) on credit. When he refused, the appellant stated abusing him, took out a knife and started assault on his abdomen. At the same time, his wife was coming to his snack cart and by seeing the assault, she started shouting after which persons of vicinity gathered and appellant fled away. The persons of vicinity took him to hospital and thereafter he lodged the FIR Ex.P/1. In cross examination, he has stated that the appellant had asked for snack in credit and when he refused, the appellant gave knife blow on his abdomen. He denied that while chasing the appellant he fell down and received injuries on his abdomen by his own knife. In his evidence there is no mention of size or type of knife. 13 PW-2, Udasiya Bai, is the wife of complainant, who have stated that at about 10 PM when she was going to snack cart of her husband, she saw the appellant abusing her husband and at the same time the appellant took out a knife and assaulted her husband by which her husband received injuries on his abdomen. She shouted and thereafter the appellant fled away from the place of occurance. She too have not disclosed any size or type of knife. 14 PW-3 Arkhit Sikka is the witness of memorandum and seizure Ex. P/5 & P/6. He has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident he was also standing near the snack cart of complainant and saw the incident. 7 The police arrested the appellant and on his interrogation he disclosed that he kept the knife in his house and on his disclosure statement knife was seized from his house. In cross examination he admits that in his presence the appellant has not given any statement to the police. He too have not stated about description of knife. 15 PW-6, Suresh Goswami, is a Constable who registered the FIR Ex.P/1 on the report made by the complainant. 16 PW-7, Gopi Sahu, is the brother of complainant. He has stated in his evidence that when he heard about the quarrel he went on the spot and when he reached there, the appellant fled away and then he informed the police persons over telephone and took his brother to the hospital. The police seized knife from his house on the basis of his disclosure statement and blood like stains were there on the tip of its blade. He stated in his cross examination that he signed the seizure memo at Angan Badi Centre. He further admits that the knife seized by the police was easily available in the open market and anyone can purchase from there. 17 PW-11, Dr. G.P. Dewangan who medically examined the complainant have stated that on 03.06.2014 he medically examined the complainant and found one incised wound on his abdomen which was muscle deep caused by hard and sharp edged object. He referred the complainant for expert opinion. He also gave query report of the said knife which is Ex.P/12 and referred it for its chemical examination for confirmation of blood on it. 18 PW-12, the Investigating Officer, have stated that on the basis of memorandum statement Ex.P/5 one knife was seized from the house 8 of appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P/6. He too have admitted in his cross examination that knife which has been seized from the appellant, the same kind of knife can also be purchased from the open market by anyone. He further admits that no FSL report is annexed with the charge sheet. 19 From close scrutiny of evidence led by the prosecution, it would be difficult to hold that prosecution has proved necessary ingredients as is required for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Though causing injury on the body of complainant is proved by the witnesses, but so far as the offence of Section 27 Arms Act is concerned, this court does not find any sufficient evidence to hold conviction for the offence under Section 27(2) of the Arms Act. However, since the appellant was found in possession of prohibited arm seized from his house which is punishable under Section 25(1-B)(b) of the Arms Act for which the conviction of appellant is maintained, however, conviction under Section 27(2) of the Arms Act cannot be maintained. 20 To prove the offence under Section 27(2) of Arms Act, the prosecution is required to establish use the said prohibited arm in a public place, but in the present case none of the witnesses have stated that the same weapon allegedly seized from the appellant have been used for causing injury to the injured. The requirement of Section 27(2) of Arms Act is not satisfied, however, from recovery of said arm from the house of appellant definitely satisfies requirement of Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act of having possession of prohibited arm in his house. Thus, it would not be safe for this court to hold conviction of the appellant for 9 the offence under Section 27(2) of the Arms Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted from the offence under Section 27(2) of the Arms Act. 21 So far as the offence of Section 324 IPC is concerned, the trial court after appreciating the evidence of PW-11 Dr. G.P. Dewangan as well as PW-13, Dr. Vishnu Dutt, who after considering the nature of injuries found on the body of complainant opined that death was not possible from the injury, instead of convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC, convicted him for the offence under Section 324 IPC and also for the offence under Section 294 IPC for abusing filthy language, in which this court does not find any perversity or illegality in convicting the appellant by the trial court. 22 From the aforesaid consideration, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act and Sections 294 and 324 IPC are affirmed. The sentence awarded to the appellant for that offence {except Section 27(2) of Arms Act} are also affirmed. However, he is acquitted from the offence under Section 27(2) of the Arms Act. 23 The appellant has already remained in jail from 07.06.2014 to 28.03.2016 and thereby he has already undergone his sentence as awarded for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act and 294 and 324 IPC. Therefore, he is not required to surrender before the trial court. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall remain in operation for a further period of six months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 24 With the aforesaid consideration, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. 10 25 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/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder