1 CRA No. 985 of 2016 2025:CGHC:50067 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 985 of 2016 Anirudh Kamde @ Tikka S/o Hemraj Kamde Aged About 20 Years R/o. Shiv Nagar, In Front Of Durga Mandir, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Smt. Indira Tripathi , Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 08/10/2025 1. In the subject crime, there were two accused persons and out of them one is child in conflict with law (CCL) and in his respect, the charge sheet was filed separately before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board. 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 26.07.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 08/2016 by the learned 4th SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.10.15 10:44:34 +0530 2 CRA No. 985 of 2016 Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur C.G, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of the IPC R.I. for 07 years & fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11-12/11/2015, at about 01:10 A.M., Rahul Jagat came to the home of the complainant, Om Prakash Sahu, who is father of the injured- Tulendra Sahu and told him that Tulendra Sahu was playing cards in the square near the Shivnagar Gauri grocery store, along with the co-accused (CCL). After some time, a dispute arose between them, then in anger the CCL had stabbed and injured Tulendra. The complainant then went to the Gauri grocery store with his wife, Lalita Sahu, where his son was lying injured. As soon as CCL saw them coming, he ran away. When the complainant asked his son, about the quarrel, Tulendra told him that he, CCL, Rahul Jagat, and Aniruddh Kamde (appellant herein) were also gambling. When the CCL lost, he said, "तुम साले पत्ता लेगाकर पसा जीतु हो, म तुम्हो आजी नहो छोडूंगा, तुम्हो जीन सा हो खत्म कर देतु हूँ ," At that time, the appellant joined him and grabbed Tulendra. Thereafter, CCL stabbed him with the intent to kill. Tulendra Sahu suffered serious injuries to his left rib, navel, and left thigh. There was a lot of blood at the scene. With the help of Shekhar Tamboli and Tulsi Dauria, he was taken to Ramakrishna Care Hospital in Raipur and admitted. Based on the report of the complainant, Tikrapara 3 CRA No. 985 of 2016 police station registered a case against the accused under Sections 294, 506B, 307, 34 IPC and investigation was taken up. 4. During investigation, Spot map was prepared. Statement of the Victim was recorded. Statements of witnesses were also recorded. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. 5. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 26.07.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant under Section 307 IPC without any legal evidence proving his involvement in the alleged assault. She submits that in the present case, there were two accused persons and the other accused who was CCL at the time of incident, has caused the assault with the help of a knife whereas no allegation of assault has been attributed to the present appellant. The testimony of the injured does not indicate that the appellant caused any injury with a knife. It is further 4 CRA No. 985 of 2016 submitted that the injured and his parents have clearly stated that no assault was made by the appellant and that CCL alone quarreled and caused the injuries. The incident occurred suddenly, without premeditation, yet the appellant was wrongly convicted under Section 307 IPC instead of being considered under Section 34 IPC. No weapon or incriminating article was recovered from the appellant, and the prosecution has failed to establish intention or common intention to commit the offence, hence the conviction against the appellant is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and the same is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. She also submits that the CCL has been dealt with separately by the Juvenile Justice Board, and his conviction attained finality. She further prayed that this Court after considering the contradictions and lack of reliable evidence against the appellant and also the fact that the appellant has already undergone a significant part of his jail sentence, therefore, the appeal may be partly allowed by reducing the sentence already undergone by the appellant. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5 CRA No. 985 of 2016 10. The sole question to be considered in this case is whether the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, CCL caused injuries to the injured Tulendra by stabbing him with a knife and appellant herein was holding the injured while stabbing him? 11. Father of the victim, Om Prakash Sahu (PW-3) stated in his statement that he knows the accused. It was at 01:00 a.m. on 12/11/2015. A boy named Rahul Jagat from the neighborhood came to their house and knocked the door. When he came out, Rahul told him that the appellant and CCL, were stabbing his son Tulendra. Upon hearing this, his wife arrived at the scene, and he followed her. He saw that the CCL had fled after seeing him. He then went to his son's side and, along with Rahul Jagat, took him to the hospital. His son had suffered lacerations to his navel, chest, and ribs, and was covered in blood. On the way, he asked his son Tulendra who had stabbed him. He then told him that the appellant and CCL, had stabbed him together. The accused were playing cards with him and when he lost, they were snatching his money. This witness has further stated that after admission in the hospital he subsequently filed a complaint against the accused at Tikrapara police station. During cross-examination, he admitted the fact that he did not see the accused stab the victim. His son told that CCL had stabbed him and appellant had held him. Thus, it is proved from the statements of the witness that he had reached the spot after being informed about the incident by Rahul Jagat and the CCL ran away from the spot after seeing him. On reaching the spot and asking the injured Tulendra, he told that 6 CRA No. 985 of 2016 the appellant and CCL had stabbed him together. 12. Lalita Sahu (PW-4), mother of the victim, has corroborated the testimony of her husband, Om Prakash Sahu (PW-3), and fully supported the version of events narrated by him. She stated that upon hearing about the incident, she immediately rushed to the spot and witnessed the assault on her son, Tulendra. Her statement confirms that the appellant and CCL, were involved in the incident, as disclosed by her son. She stated in her statement that as soon as she reached the scene, she saw that her son Tulendra was being stabbed by the appellant and CCL. The knife was in the hand of CCL, and appellant was holding Tulendra's hand. If she hadn't arrived immediately, appellant and CCL would have killed her son. As soon as she approached her son, the CCL immediately fled, while the appellant was standing there. They immediately took Tulendra to the hospital. While taking him to the hospital, she saw that the intestines of the victim had been pulled out and he was bleeding profusely. He also suffered injuries to his ribs and chest, causing bloody discharge. During cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she did not witness the incident. She also denied that his son had not told him anything about the incident. Thus, all the statements made by the witness regarding the incident have been irrefutable in her cross- examination and there is no reason to disbelieve them. 13. Injured (PW-6), stated in his statement that he knows the accused and that they lived in his neighborhood. The incident occurred at Gauri Kirana Stores near his home. CCL and some other neighborhood 7 CRA No. 985 of 2016 residents were playing cards. Appellant was intoxicated and, along with his accomplice, CCL, were trying to snatch money from him. When he resisted, the appellant took out a knife and threw it at CCL. While the appellant held him, CCL stabbed him, injuring him in the thigh, abdomen, ribs, chest, and near the left rib, causing profuse bleeding. His mother arrived, followed by his father, and Rahul took him to the hospital. In cross-examination, the witness refuted the suggestion that the accused was not present at the time of the incident. He also refuted the suggestion that appellant tried to intervene when CCL was stabbing him. He further stated that the appellant was holding him. Thus, the statements of the injured corroborate the statements made by his parents, and prima facie establish that the appellant, along with another accused (CCL), stabbed the victim with a knife. 14. Furthermore, Dr. Siddharth Tamaskar (PW-9), posted as a Consultant Surgeon at Ramakrishna Hospital since 2011, by submitting his report (Ex.P-14), stated in his statement that On November 12th, 2015, at 02:48 A.M., the injured Tulendra Sahu was brought to his hospital by his father, in a critical condition. Upon examination, the injured was found to have an incised bone injury, which caused bleeding and blood clotting within the abdomen. The above injury was inflicted by a hard, sharp, and pointed object and was serious in nature. Another incised bone injury located near the left chest, due to this injury, there was accumulation of blood inside the chest. Further a cut wound was present on the upper part of the left thigh. 8 CRA No. 985 of 2016 These injuries were diagnosed through the operation. The patient's injuries were serious and could have resulted in death if he was not treated immediately. He further stated that in cross-examination, that the injury could have been caused by falling on a sharp object. However, no such suggestion was made by the defense to the injured Tulendra during his cross-examination, nor were any circumstances presented in the case that would indicate that the injured person had fallen on a sharp object at the time of the incident. 15. Upon a careful and deeply examining the entire record, including the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is apparent that the prosecution has successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the key prosecution witnesses, Om Prakash Sahu (PW-3), mother of the victim Lalita Sahu (PW-4) and the injured himself, Tulendra Sahu (PW-6), are consistent and trustworthy. The evidence of these witnesses stands corroborated by the medical testimony of Dr. Siddharth Tamaskar (PW-9), who has clearly stated that the injuries sustained by the victim were grievous and caused by a sharp pointed weapon. 16. From the sequence of events and the evidence available on record, it stands established that the appellant, along with co-accused CCL, was present at the scene of occurrence and, in furtherance of their common intention, participated in the assault on the injured Tulendra Sahu. The evidence of the injured and other witnesses reveals that co-accused Shiv Kumar inflicted knife strokes on the victim, while the present appellant 9 CRA No. 985 of 2016 merely held the hands of the victim, thereby facilitating the act of stabbing. The injured suffered serious stab injuries on his abdomen, chest, and thigh, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death had prompt medical treatment not been administered. Therefore, even though the appellant did not actually inflict the knife injury, his act of restraining the victim and sharing a common intention with the co-accused CCL brings him within the ambit of Section 307 IPC. 17. The learned trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence and materials on record, rightly recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant and convicted him under Section 307 IPC, holding that his participation in the assault, though limited to restraining the victim, was a crucial act done in furtherance of the common intention to cause death. Though initially the charge was framed under Section 307 r/w Section 34 but the conviction has been made under Section 307. However, looking to the charge framed initially and the evidence available on record, the conviction of the appellant ought to have been made under Section 307 r/w Section 34 IPC. 18. Upon perusal, this Court finds no interference with the finding of conviction, as the same is well-merited, based on credible evidence, and supported by sound reasoning. Hence, the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed with a modification in respect of the conviction under Section 307 r/w Section 34 instead of Section 307 IPC. 10 CRA No. 985 of 2016 19. So far as the sentence part is concerned, this Court finds it appropriate to take into consideration certain mitigating factors. It is evident that the incident occurred suddenly during playing cards, without any prior enmity or premeditated intention to kill. The assault appears to have taken place in the heat of passion. Even the main allegation of causing stab injury is on the CCL whereas the only allegation against the appellant herein is that he hold the victim while the CCL was stabbing him. Furthermore, the appellant has already undergone a substantial part of his sentence. There is also no material on record to indicate that the appellant has any previous criminal antecedents. 20. As regards sentence, in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in para-9 as follows: "9. Western jurisprudence and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817: "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested: 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it'. George Nicodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education. It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub- culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be 11 CRA No. 985 of 2016 countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw: 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield: "If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences” 21. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Pramod Kumar Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023) 9 SCC 810 has reiterated the above facts and also placed reliance upon the decision rendered in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra). 22. Considering all these above aspects and also considering the fact that during pendency of this appeal the appellant was on bail since 2017; and did not misuse the liberty granted to him and keeping in view the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478, and in light of the Supreme Court in cases of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and Pramod Kumar Mishra 12 CRA No. 985 of 2016 (supra) and further considering the fact that the appellant has served almost one year of his jail sentence, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellant back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be adequately served, if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him during trial and incarceration. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC, the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court is modified to the period already undergone by him. 24. The appellant is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. He is reported to be on bail. His 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 $.Bhilwar