1 2025:CGHC:50075 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 193 of 2008 Hemchand S/o Prahlad Kurmi, aged about 22 years, R/o Dongakahraud, PS Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 08/10/2025 The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.1.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa in ST 2 No.97/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 307/34 of IPC. RI for five years, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for three months. Under Section 323/34 of IPC. RI for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Hemlal and accused Hemchand are step brothers and co-accused Prahlad is their father. There was dispute between them regarding partition of land. Co- accused Prahlad owned 3-4 acres of land, he wanted to sell the said land and purchase another land in the name of his son. On 5.1.2007 one Babulal came to purchase the said land but the complainant told him that Prahlad would sell the land only after partition. On this, next day i.e. 6.1.2007 at 9.30 am the accused persons with Ramchandra (juvenile accused) came to his house carrying lathi, abused him filthily and beat him with lathi. When his wife Sahodra Bai came to intervene, she too was assaulted by them with lathi. The complainant lodged FIR (Ex.P/1) against the accused persons Hemchand, Ramchandra and Prahlad under Sections 307, 294, 323, 34 of IPC. Injured Hemlal and Sahodra were got medically examined vide Ex.P/12 & P/13. Spot map 3 Ex.P/2 was prepared. Bloodstained shirt of the complainant was seizure vide Ex.P/3. On being produced by the accused persons, the weapon of offence lathis were seized vide Ex.P/5, P/6 & P/7. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused Hemchand and co-accused Prahlad under Sections 307, 294, 323, 34 of IPC whereas charge sheet against juvenile Ramchandra was filed before the Children Court. Learned trial Court framed charges u/s 294, 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC against the accused, which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial. 03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 09 witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by them in defence. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, learned trial Court while acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 294 of IPC, convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. Since co-accused Prahlad died on 10.9.2021, the instant appeal in respect of him stood abated vide order dated 15.4.2025 and it survives only in respect of the accused Hemchand. 4 05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. He submits that looking to the medical evidence it is crystal clear that offence under Section 307/34 of IPC is not made out against the accused/appellant and at the most, he can be held guilty under Section 324/34 of IPC. With regard to quantum of sentence thereunder, considering the fact that the incident occurred way back in the year 2007, this appeal is pending since 2008, the appellant is now aged more than 40 years, he remained in jail for six months and eighteen days and did not misuse the liberty while on bail, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the contention of the appellant and submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Sections 294, 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court 5 while acquitting him of the charge u/s 294 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 09. PW-1 Hemlal, complainant, states that both the accused persons assaulted him with lathi as a result of which he sustained injuries over head, waist, abdomen and leg. He states that the accused persons also assaulted his wife Sahodra Bai. PW-2 Sahodra Bai also states that both the accused persons assaulted her with lathi. They remained firm in cross-examination and the defence could not elicit anything from them to make their evidence doubtful or untrustworthy. 10. PW-6 Dr. KK Dahire examined complainant Hemlal on 6.1.2007 and found three injuries i.e. cut over left parietal region & occiptial region, contusion over right side of abdomen and swelling over right forearm. He advised for x-ray vide his report Ex.P/12. He also examined injured Sahodra Bai and found swelling over her forehead vide Ex.P/13. In the query report he stated that due to excessive bleeding, fracture in the head bone and internal bleeding, the victim could have died vide Ex.P/14. He referred the victim Hemlal to surgical specialist for definite opinion regarding gravity of the head injury vide Ex.P/15. He states that he did not find any fracture in the x-ray report of Sahodra Bai. In cross-examination he admits that he did not examine the x-ray report of Hemlal and that he did not notice any external injury on leg, thigh and forearms of Sahodra. 6 11. In this case, the prosecution did not examine the treating doctor and did not file x-ray report of complainant Hemlal. Thus, in absence of any medical report and evidence of the treating doctor with regard to gravity of the injuries sustained by the complainant, the prosecution has failed to prove that the injuries suffered by the complainant were fatal to his life. However, the learned trial Court did not apprecaite this aspect and held the accused/appellant guilty u/s 307/34 of IPC. Therefore, looking to the nature of injuries caused to complainant Hemlal and evidence of Dr. KK Dahire, the accused/appellant is liable to be convicted under Section 324/34 of IPC instead of 307/34 of IPC. So far as his conviction u/s 323/34 of IPC is concerned, the same being based on proper appreciation of overall evidence on record, needs no interference. 12. As regards sentence u/s 324/34 of IPC, considering the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2007, the appeal is pending since 2008; the appellant was on bail during trial as well as during pendency of this appeal and did not misuse the liberty; at present he is more than 40 years of age; he has remained in jail for about six months and eighteen days, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in 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 with fine amount. 7 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant u/s 323/34 of IPC and setnenced imposed thereunder by learned trial Court; his conviction u/s 307/34 of IPC is altered to one u/s 324/34 of IPC and he is sentenced thereunder to the period already undergone by him with fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof to suffer additional RI for three months. The fine amount already deposited shall be adjusted accordingly. He is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.10.09 15:59:00 +0530