1 2025:CGHC:18455 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 24 of 2016 1 - Nanhiram S/o Shri Ratansay Rawat Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Salkheta, Thana - Kapu, Civil And Rev. Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 23/04/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2015 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 32/2011, whereby the appellant has been 2 convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for 1 month. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to disposal of this appeal are that on 30.07.2010 at around 5:00 pm the accused hit the complainant Gan- garam with axe (Farsi) stating that complainant has not distributed the cattles. The complainant sustained injuries over shoulder and face. The complainant lodged the complaint in Police Station- Kapu and registered the FIR. The police sent the injured to the Hospital for MLC in which doc- tor has opined simple injury and started the investigation in the matter and recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet before the JMFC Dharamjaygarh. Looking to the fact that the offences under Sec- tion 307 of IPC is trial by the Court of Session learned Magistrate com- mitted the case to the Court of Session vide its committal order dated 26.02.2011 and sent the record to the Court of Session for its proper ad- judication. 4. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record including the evidence of the witnesses, learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) has convicted and sentenced the ac- cused/appellant as described in paragraph No. 2 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 3 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case under Section 307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submits that as there was no intention on the part of the accused/appellant to cause death of the victim, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and at the most act of the accused/ap- pellant may fall either under Section 325 or 326 IPC. Alternatively, coun- sel for the accused/appellant submits that if the conviction part of the judgment impugned is not going to be interfered with, keeping in mind the fact that the accused/appellant has already remained behind the bars for about 2 years and 8 months, the sentence imposed on him may be re- duced to the period already undergone. 7. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State supports the judg- ment impugned and submits that taking into consideration the state- ments of the injured (PW-1), Dr. Chandrashekhar Dansena (PW-8) which gets corroboration from the testimony of other independent witnesses, the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge holding the ac- cused/appellant guilty under Section 307 IPC being based on proper ap- preciation of the evidence on record are fully justified and do not call for any interference in this appeal. Likewise, referring to the seizure report, the State counsel also holds the conviction of the appellant under the Arms Act to be just and proper. 8. Heard counsel for the parties at length and went through the evidence on record with utmost care and caution. 9. PW-1/ Gangaram (injured) has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he has six brothers, one of his brothers has died by hanging. Incident happened on 30.07.2010 at around 5 o'clock in the evening, when he went out to collect wood in the nearby forest and the accused reached near the door of Nanhiram/ accused, at the same time the accused came 4 out of his house with तब्बल and saying why don't you give him the share of cow and goat, he hit him once in the mouth with तब्बल and near his left arm due to which his tooth was broken and when he was hit by the ac- cused, he got injured and blood came out, then he screamed. On his shouting, his brothers Vijay, Amar Sai, Jhandu and Vishwanath came to his rescue and snatched तब्बल from NanhiRam/ accused. When he be- came unconscious, his brothers brought him back to consciousness by sprinkling water on him. His brothers laid him on a cot and took him to Kapu police station and lodged a report about the incident. From where he was sent to Raigarh Hospital after initial treatment at Dharamjaygarh Hospital. 10. Eyewitness to the incident Amar Sai PW-4 and PW-3 Vijay Kumar's statement confirms the above statement of Gangaram/ injured. Eyewit- ness Amar Sai PW-4 has stated that the accused and the applicant are his uncles. On the evening of the incident, after hearing the voices of the accused and the applicant, he reached the spot and saw that the ac- cused was beating the injured Gangaram. Due to which Gangaram got injury over his face and right shoulder. Similarly, another eye-witness PW-3 Vijay Kumar has stated that injured Gangaram has sustained in- juries over his face, nose, lips, right shoulder and chest. 11. The above evidence of injured Gangaram is also confirmed by the state- ment of PW-8/ Dr. Chandrashekhar Dansena who gave his report (Ex. P/15) wherein he has told that constable Ashish Shriwas from Kapu po- lice station District-Raigarh had brought the injured Gangaram before him for medical examination on 31.07.2010 at 12:25 pm. The doctor has stated that on examination of the victim, an incised wound measuring 10 cm x 8 cm x 4 cm was found on his left shoulder. There was a torn wound between the victim's upper lip and nose which moved in the opposite di- 5 rection, and the front tooth of the victim's upper jaw was completely bro- ken. The medical witness has stated that on 06.08.2010, a फरसी was presented to him by the same constable for testing. Ex. P-16 is the report wherein it is mentioned the length of the फरसी was 20.5 cm, width was 6.5 cm, length of the wooden bat was 95.5 cm and diameter of the bat was 9.5 cm, circumference of the bat was 3 cm. 12. Thus from the evidence of the victim (PW-1), eye-witness Amar Sai (PW- 4), Vijay Kumar (PW-3) and Dr. Chandrashekhar Dansena (PW-8) it is crystal clear that it is the accused/appellant who assaulted the victim with the help of फरसी as a result of which he suffered injury on the right shoul- der, face, mouth, nose, lips and chest. Since the injury was grievous in nature, he was taken to hospital at Dharamjaygarh and thereafter he was referred for further treatment in the Hospital of Raigarh. 13. Thus taking a cumulative note of the medical evidence collected by the prosecution; looking to the nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury has been inflicted, keeping in mind the report of the medical report (Ex.P-15 and 16), this Court has no hesitation to hold that the findings recorded by the trial Court convicting the accused/appellant under Section 307 IPC are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and deserve to be and are hereby maintained. 14. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact that the appellant and injured are real brother and dispute arose between the parties over the distribution of cattles and there is no previous criminal antecedent of the appellant, the sentence of 7 years imposed by the trial Court appears to excessively on the higher side and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be 6 in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone by him, i.e., 2 years and 8 months. 15. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appel- lant under Section 307 of IPC is affirmed and against the conviction he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, fine im- posed by trial Court is maintained. 16. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are not dis- charged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of 6 months in light of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 17. Records of the trial court be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima