1 CRA No.326/2016 2025:CGHC:57260 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 326 of 2016 Devcharan Banjare S/o Bhagwat Banjare Aged About 22 Years R/o Vijay Nagar, Laxmi Provision Stores, Awanti Vihar, Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus The State of Chhattisgarh The Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 25/11/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 60/2015 by the learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G. whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.11.27 17:29:20 +0530 2 CRA No.326/2016 Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of the IPC R.I. for 7 years & fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on November 16, 2014, at around 6:30 p.m., complainant-Devsharan PW-2 visited to meet his friend Vikam Yadav PW-1 in Sector 2, Avanti Vihar, Raipur. At that time, Vikam Yadav was standing with accused/appellant in front of Laxmi Provision Stores. When complainant tried to speak to Vikam Yadav, the accused, due to an old grudge, abused him, threatened to kill him, and pushed him hard. The accused then took a knife from his pocket and stabbed complainant Devsharan Dadsena in the stomach and ran away from the spot. The complainant ran to his maternal uncle, Gendalal PW-3, and told him about the incident. The complainant was taken to the hospital. On the basis of FIR lodged by PW-1 Vikram Yadav, FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered against the appellant. During the investigation, the police prepared a site map of the crime scene. A memorandum of the appellant was recorded and a knife was seized from him. A blood-stained T-shirt was seized from the complainant. The appellant/accused was arrested. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, final report was filed. 3. 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. 3 CRA No.326/2016 4. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30.01.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to law and facts on record and suffers from gross illegality. Learned counsel submits that the medical report does not support the case of prosecution, as there is no evidence lead by the prosecution that injury was fatal to life. He submits that in the medical report, the Doctor PW-5 stated in cross-examination that she has not mentioned the exact measurement of seized Knife. It is further submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove any motive or intention on the part of the appellant to commit the alleged offence. The medical officer did not opine that the injury was sufficient to cause death or mention any excessive bleeding. There are huge contradiction and omission among the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, it is submitted that the conviction of the appellant is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. He further prayed that the appellant has already undergone the jail sentence of about 7 months and the appeal be partly allowed by reducing the sentence already undergone by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions 4 CRA No.326/2016 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. 7. 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. 8. Devsharan Dadsena (PW-2), injured/complainant, stated that the accused owns a grocery store in Avanti Vihar, Raipur. On the date of incident, he was listening music on his mobile near the appellant’s grocery store at 7:00 p.m., the appellant assaulted him with knife in the stomach and Vikram saved him by holding the appellant and blood was oozing out from his stomach. Thereafter, he went to his maternal uncle home and called out his Uncle, which is 10-15 steps away from the place of incident. Subsequent, he was taken to the Hospital, where he underwent a stomach operation. He further stated that he was admitted to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur for two months, after which he was treated for one month at Sai Hospital, Raipur. 9. The first informant Vikam Yadav (PW-1), friend of complainant stated that he went to the shop from his home and there he came to know that Devsharan suffered injury. Thereafter, he went to his maternal uncle's house to see him. He stated that he returned home after 10 minutes. He stated that he had gone to see Devsharan, so Devsharan had revealed his name that he was 5 CRA No.326/2016 present at the time of the incident. He further stated that he did not see the injury sustained by Devsharan. In cross-examination, he stated that he came to know the the injury sustained by the complainant was due fallen on a wire fencing. 10. Gendalal Dadsena (PW-3) maternal uncle of complainant stated that at the time of the incident, around 7:00 p.m., he was watching television at home, at that time, he heard the voice of the complainant and when he saw him, the complainant told that the appellant had assaulted him with knife in the stomach, thereafter, he Ambulance. 11. Dr. Neeta Karnawat (PW-5), who conducted the medical examination of the injured, stated that the complainant had a stab wound measuring 02 cm × 01 cm on the upper part of the abdomen in the epigastric region. According to her, this injury could have been caused by a hard and sharp-edged object. From the said evidence, it is manifest that the injury has not been described in MLC or by any query. 12. Upon a close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that the testimony of the injured witness, PW-2 inspires confidence and remains consistent on material particulars. He has categorically stated that the appellant had assaulted him with a knife, resulting in a incised wound on his stomach. His statement finds full corroboration from the medical evidence of PW-5 and has opined that the injury was caused by a sharp-edged weapon. 6 CRA No.326/2016 The defence has not been able to impeach the credibility of the injured witness, and his version, supported by medical evidence, is sufficient to sustain conviction. 13. However, on a careful assessment of the nature of injury and the surrounding circumstances, it does not appear that the appellant had any intention to cause death or knowledge that his act was so imminently dangerous as to make death a probable consequence. The assault was limited to a single blow on the stomach, and no further attempt was made to strike any vital part of the body. In the medical report, there is no report by the Doctor that the injury was grievous in nature and even the injury has not been described by giving specific details either in MLC or by any query, therefore, the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) are not fully established. 14. In view thereof, while the act of the appellant clearly attracts penal liability, it would be just and appropriate to convert the conviction from Section 307 IPC to Section 324 IPC, i.e., voluntarily causing grievous hurt by a sharp-edged weapon. 15. Having regard to the facts that the occurrence is of the year 2014, the appellant has already undergone the jail sentence of about 7 months, the sentence imposed upon him is modified to the period already undergone, while maintaining the conviction under Section 324 IPC. 16. Upon perusal, this Court finds no interference with the finding of 7 CRA No.326/2016 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 324 instead of Section 307 IPC . 17. 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 without any prior enmity or premeditated intention to kill. The assault appears to have taken place in the heat of passion. Furthermore, the appellant has already undergone the jail sentence of about 7 months. 18. 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, 8 CRA No.326/2016 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 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” 19. 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). 9 CRA No.326/2016 20. Considering all these above aspects and also considering the fact that during pendency of this appeal the appellant was on bail since 2016; 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 (supra) and further considering the fact that the appellant has served almost 7 months 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. 21. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the IPC, the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court is modified to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount of Rs. 2000/- imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs.20,000/- . If the said amount of Rs. 2000/- as imposed by the learned trial Court, has already been deposited by the appellant, the same shall be adjusted with Rs. 20,000/-, failing which, the appellant shall undergo further R.I. for 3 months. The entire fine amount of Rs. 20,000/- shall be payable to the victim/injured as compensation. 10 CRA No.326/2016 22. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond is 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. 23. 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 Gowri/Amardeep