1 2025:CGHC:49869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 426 of 2022 Sonlal Turi @ Bhagwan Puriha S/o Chaitram Turi, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bhagwanpur, P.S.- Kotraroad, Present R/o Village- Dongadkel, P.S. Bhupdevpur, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - Bhupdevpur, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 07/10/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.02.2022 passed by First Upper Sessions Judge, Raigarh (CG) in Session Case No.21/2019, whereby the learned First Upper Sessions Judge, after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:- Sl. No. Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 01. 307 IPC RI for 05 years Rs.500/- SI for 06 months BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.10.09 11:28:49 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that the appellant is son- in-law of the victim Sevak Ram. On 24.6.2018 at about 9.00 am, the appellant went to the house of the victim, abused him and assaulted upon him by means of wooden stick, threatening to kill him. The victim sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body. On being report lodged by the victim, FIR was registered and after investigation, charge sheet under Sections 294, 506B, 323 & 307 IPC was filed against the appellant. 3. The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 307 and 506 Part-II IPC and the same was read and explained to the appellant, who abjured his guilt and claimed for trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses to prove the guilt of the appellant. Examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence claiming himself to be innocent. No defence witness has been examined by the appellant. 4. After completion of the trial, the learned First Sessions Judge has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II IPC, but convicted him under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he does not want to press this appeal as regards to the conviction part of the impugned judgment, rather he would confine his argument only to the sentence part. He further submits that though the appellant assaulted the victim by means of wooden stick on his head, but dispute erupted only on a trivial issue as his wife had gone to her parental house and stayed there for one week. He further submits that the assault was allegedly made by a wooden stick, but no fracture or grievous injury was caused to the victim. He 3 further submits that the appellant was in jail for 03 years 04 months and 25 days, therefore, his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that though no fracture or grievous injury was found on the body of the victim, but the appellant assaulted the victim by wooden stick, that too, on his head which is vital part. She would further submit that the State has not filed any appeal against impugned judgment. She further submits that the appellant is son-in-law of the victim, therefore, having considered the injury, appropriate order may be passed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 8. Though learned counsel for the appellant is not pressing instant appeal on the conviction part of the judgment, but as per the deposition of the victim (PW-5), who has explicitly stated that the appellant assaulted him by means of wooden stick, therefore, he had sustained injury on his head. Aforesaid fact is also supported by eye witnesses Laxmin (PW-1), who is wife of the appellant and Kousalya (PW-6), who is wife of the victim. Further considering the deposition of Dr. Jyoti Ekka (PW-13), who medically examined the victim and prepared MLC report (Ex-P/8) and finding recorded by the learned trial Court holding the appellant guilty for offence under Section 307 IPC, which is based on finding of fact that though in Ex-P/13 X- ray, no bony fracture has been reported to be found, but it is settled proposition of law that for conviction of the appellant, nature of the injury is not seen, rather part of the body where the assault is made, is material thing, hence, holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC by the learned trial Court is affirmed. 4 9. So far as sentence part is concerned, having considered the nature of injury sustained to the victim and other facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the fact that the appellant has served out jail sentence for about more than three years and four months as against his jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the appellant in detention to complete period of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, rather ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already served. 10. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellant is maintained, but jail sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period of 03 years 04 months and 25 days i.e. the period already undergone by him. 11. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a further period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 12. Record of the Sessions Judge along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and needful, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Bini