1 2025:CGHC:53856 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1268 of 2016 1 - Abated (Girdhari Shastri) As Per Court Order Dated 25-09-2025 2 - Soni Shastri S/o Girdhari Shastri Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Kataud, Sabriyadera, Thana - Nawagarh, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh , District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Amarlal Shastri S/o Girdhari Shastri Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Kataud, Sabriyadera, Thana - Nawagarh, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh , District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Shivrinarayan District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellants :Shri Samir Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State :Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.07 16:28:54 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 04/11/2025 1. In the present case, a total of three persons were arrayed as accused, including the appellants herein. During the course of the trial, accused Girdhari Shashtri passed away and his appeal was abated vide order dated 25.09.2025. 2. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30/09/2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.19/2016 by the learned Second Additional Session Judge Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for three months and <ne of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation. Facts of the case: 3 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.10.2015, the complainant Mohanlal, along with Manoharlal and another villager named Mohanlal, had gone to the pasture land (kachhar) to graze their cattle. At about 11:00 a.m., the accused persons Girdhari, Soni Satnami, and Amarlal arrived at the spot and, accusing them of allowing their cattle to graze on sugarcane crops, started abusing them in <lthy language, insulted them by uttering obscene words referring to their mother and sister, and further threatened to kill them. Thereafter, all the accused persons, sharing a common intention, assaulted the complainant party with sticks (dandas). When Manoharlal tried to intervene, the accused persons said, “We will kill him today,” and struck him on the head with sticks, causing him to fall unconscious. The villagers immediately called the 108 Sanjeevani ambulance service and took the injured Manoharlal to Nawagarh Hospital, from where he was referred to the District Hospital, Janjgir, and subsequently to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for further treatment. Based on this incident, the complainant lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against the accused persons. 4. Upon medical examination of the injured Manoharlal, the 4 doctor opined that the injuries sustained were grievous in nature and could have resulted in death had timely medical treatment not been provided. On the basis of this medical opinion, Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was added to the case. 5. During investigation, the police prepared a spot map of the place of occurrence and, as per seizure memos (Exhibits P-4, P-5, and P-6), seized bamboo sticks used in the assault. The injured Manoharlal was medically examined at the District Hospital, Janjgir, and later referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, where a CT scan was conducted. Statements of witnesses were recorded, and the accused persons were arrested. 6. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was <led before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Since the oGences under Sections 294, 506-B, 323/34, and 307/34 IPC are triable by a Court of Session, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir, and thereafter made over to this Court for trial. 7. Upon framing of charges under Sections 294, 506-B, 323/34, and 307/34 IPC, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and 5 claimed to be tried. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied the allegations and stated that they were innocent and falsely implicated. No evidence was led in defence on their behalf. 8. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph two of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. Submission of the parties: 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law, facts, and evidence on record, and the <ndings are perverse and unsustainable. It is contended that the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is improper and not in accordance with settled legal principles, as the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the oGence against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The statements of prosecution witnesses do not support the prosecution case, and there is no reliable evidence to establish that the 6 appellants assaulted the injured. The testimony of the complainant is not corroborated by any independent witness and, therefore, is not trustworthy or reliable. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions, omissions, and improvements in the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, which go to the root of the prosecution case. Hence, in absence of cogent and convincing evidence, the appellants ought to have been acquitted of all the charges. 10. Ms. Isha Jajodia, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submit that the conviction of the appellants is well founded and does not call for any interference. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove, and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 12. To substantiate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to carefully examine the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 13. Mohanlal (PW/2)/injured stated that he was acquainted with the present accused persons as well as with the absconding 7 accused Soni. He deposed that at the relevant time, he, along with his brother Manohar and one Mohan Yadav of the village, had gone to the village pasture land (kachhar). At that place, all the three accused persons arrived and started abusing them in obscene language, uttering <lthy words relating to their mother and sister. The witness further stated that all three accused were armed with sticks (dandas) and assaulted them, as a result of which Manohar became unconscious, and the witness himself sustained injuries on his chest and hand, while Manohar sustained injuries on various parts of his body. Mohanlal, out of fear, ran towards the village. Subsequently, an ambulance arrived at the spot and took both the witness and Manohar to the hospital. The witness stated that he lodged a report regarding the incident at Police Station Shivrinagar. 14. Manohar Yadav (PW-3)/injured has stated that Mohanlal (PW- 2) was his brother. The incident had occurred approximately six months prior to the date of his statement, at about 11:00 a.m. He stated that on the said day, he along with his brother had gone to the village pasture to graze their cows. He further stated that the accused persons had alleged that they had 8 allowed their cattle to graze in the sugarcane crop and, on that pretext, had assaulted them. The witness stated that the accused persons <rst assaulted him with sticks, causing injuries to his head, back, and chest, due to which he lost consciousness at the spot. He further stated that the accused persons had also assaulted his brother Mohanlal. 15. PW-6 Mahonlal, S/o Rajkumar stated that the incident had occurred about seven to eight months prior to the date of his deposition, at around 11:00 a.m. He stated that on the said day, he had gone along with his brother Manohar and one Mohan to the village pasture land (Kachar Khar) for grazing their cows and oxen. He further stated that all the three accused persons came there armed with sticks and, while abusing in <lthy language, started assaulting Manohar. The witness further stated that the accused persons also assaulted Manohar (PW-3) and Mohan (PW-2). He stated that due to the assault, Manohar sustained injuries on his head and leg, and Mohan sustained injuries on his back. The witness further stated that out of fear, he ran away from the spot and informed one Baba Ramlal about the incident. He stated that thereafter, Rajaram, Kaleshwar, Manoj, Pardeshi, and Ramlal 9 went to the said pasture land, where they called an ambulance and sent Manohar and Mohan for medical treatment. 16. Dr. Shweta Lal (PW-10) stated that injured Manohar Yadav, son of Pardeshi, was brought before her for medical examination. Upon examination, she found swelling on the posterior part of the head of the injured and advised a CT scan. She further stated that at the time of examination, the injured had vomited and was in an unconscious state, and his general condition appeared to be weak. The witness further opined that the injuries sustained by the injured had been caused by a hard and blunt object and were about 24 hours old at the time of her examination. She stated that she had advised X-ray and CT scan and referred the injured to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for further treatment. Her medical examination report was marked as Exhibit P-14. The witness further stated that on 08.12.2015, an application regarding the query of the injuries sustained by Manohar was received from Police Station Janjgir. After perusing her previous MLC report, she opined that the injuries sustained by the injured were of serious nature and that, had timely medical treatment 10 not been provided, death could have occurred. Her query report was marked as Exhibit P-7A. During cross-examination, the witness denied the suggestion that such injuries could have been caused merely by a fall on the back of the head on a hard surface or the ground. However, she voluntarily stated that such injuries could occur if the back portion of the head struck against a hard object. She admitted that to assess the seriousness of any injury, it is necessary to examine X-ray and CT scan <lms. The witness further stated that she had given her opinion regarding the seriousness of the injuries after perusing the CT scan of the injured, which revealed the presence of an SDH (subdural hematoma—collection of clotted blood). She clari<ed that there was no bone fracture in the head as per the CT scan report. She identi<ed the CT scan report she had examined as Exhibit P-16. The witness denied the suggestion that she had given her opinion regarding the seriousness of the injuries arbitrarily or without perusing any medical report. 17. On careful evaluation of the testimonies of the injured witnesses and the Medical OJcer, it emerges that the prosecution version regarding the assault <nds due 11 corroboration from independent and medical evidence. The eyewitnesses have consistently deposed that all the three accused persons had arrived at the place of occurrence armed with sticks and had assaulted Manohar and Mohan, causing injuries to their head, leg and back. Their evidence remains natural and consistent, and no material contradiction could be elicited to discredit their version. 18. The deposition of the Medical OJcer further corroborates the ocular evidence. The Doctor found swelling on the posterior part of the head of injured Manohar, who was in an unconscious state and whose general condition was weak. She opined that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object and were within 24 hours old at the time of examination. The Doctor also stated that the injuries were of serious nature, and if proper medical treatment had not been provided, the injured could have succumbed to those injuries. Her subsequent query reports (Exhibits P-7A to P-10A) con<rmed that the injuries could have been caused by the bamboo sticks seized from the accused. 19. Though in cross-examination the Medical OJcer conceded that such injuries might also occur if the back of the head 12 struck a hard surface, she reaJrmed that in the present case the pattern and nature of injury were consistent with assault by a blunt object such as the bamboo sticks produced before her. The defence has failed to bring on record any cogent material to disbelieve the medical or ocular evidence. 20. Accordingly, the Court <nds that the evidence of the injured and eyewitnesses stands trustworthy and is duly supported by the medical <ndings. The injuries sustained by the victims are proved to be grievous in nature and caused by hard and blunt objects, thereby establishing the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the participation of the accused persons in the incident. 21. As regards the question of sentence, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the occurrence took place, the fact that the incident dates back to the year 2015, and that the appellants have no prior criminal antecedents and have already remained in custody for about 6 days, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone. During the pendency of the 13 appeal, the appellants have remained on bail and there is nothing on record to suggest that they have misused the liberty granted to them. The injuries sustained by the complainant and his son being simple in nature further justify a lenient approach. 22. In light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet [(2009) 13 SCC 478], where leniency was shown considering the long passage of time and payment of <ne to the victim, a similar view deserves to be taken in the present case. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Trial Court is modi<ed to the period already undergone. However, the <ne amount imposed by the Trial Court is enhanced to ₹10,000/- per appellant under Section 323/34 IPC. The total <ne amount for the present two appellants shall thus come to ₹20,000/- (₹10,000 × 2), after adjusting any sum already deposited. The <ne shall be deposited before the Trial Court within one month, failing which the appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The <ne amount of ₹20,000/- shall be paid to both 14 the injured equally as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 23. With the aforesaid modi<cation in sentence, the appeal partly allowed. 24. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib