1 2025:CGHC:50074 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 177 of 2007 1 – Ramlal, S/o Kanglu Sahu, Aged about 49 years, 2. Ramswaroop, S/o Parasram, Aged about 24 years, 3. Dharam Sahu, S/o Parasram, Aged about 21 years, 4. Ramsharan, S/o Parasram, Aged about 31 years, 5. Parasram, S/o Kanglu Sahu, Aged about 55 years, 6. Sukhdeo, S/o Ramlal Sahu, Aged about 19 years, 7. Devi Prasad, S/o Ramlal Sahu, Aged about 24 years, All are residents of Village Bhatlikala, Police Station- Jarhagaon, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station- Jarhagaon, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Siddhant Das appears on behalf of Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate and Mr. Virendra Verma appears on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Afroz Khan, P.L. 2 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 08/10/2025 1. In pursuance of this Court’s order dated 25.09.2025, appellants No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 were present today before this Court. Let their presence be marked. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.02.2007 passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Mungeli, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 36/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of IPC r/w Section 149 of IPC R.I. for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for 2 months U/s 323 of IPC r/w Section 149 of IPC R.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for 1 month U/s 148 of IPC R.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for 1 month U/s 294 of IPC Fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for 15 days (All sentences to run concurrently) 3 4. Earlier, as per this Court’s order dated 21.08.2025, appellant No.4 has died, therefore, the appeal stands abated in respect of appellant No.4 and this appeal is being prosecuted on behalf of rest of the appellants. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29-10-2005 at about 10.30 pm, the complainant Bharat Sahu along with his cousin Mallu Sahu were returning home from Barambaba Chowk after listening to Ramayan. When Ramlal Sahu of the locality, seeing Bharat Sahu and Lallu Sahu, due to previous enmity, abused them and called out other accused persons. Upon hearing his voice, Devi Prasad Sahu, Sukhdev, Ramswaroop, Dharam Sahu, Ramsharan Sahu, Parasram Sahu came there armed with lathi and axes, surrounded him and Lallu Sahu & started assaulting them with lathi and axes and threatened to kill them. Ramlal was holding an axe and other accused were holding lathi, on his shouting his wife Nagesiabai came to intervene but they beat up Nagesiabai too. Due to the assault done by the accused, Bharat got injuries on his right forearm, eyebrow, lip, cheek, head, right hand, back, waist and blood was oozing out due to head injury and Nagesiabai also got injured. Lallu Sahu, Nagesiabai, Bhagwandin Vishram Sahu have witnessed this incident, they identified the accused after seeing them in the light of electric light. Thereafter, incident was reported by Bharatlal Sahu at Police Station- Jarhagaon. Later on, Bharatlal Sahu and his wife, Nagesiabai, were medically examined. Due to Bharat's grievous injuries, he was taken to SIMS Bilaspur for X-ray and proper treatment. A map of the crime scene was prepared and soil was seized from the scene. Memorandum statements of all the 4 accused persons were recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. On the basis of their statements, seizures were made. Thereafter, seizures were sent to FSL Raipur for chemical examination. After the investigation was completed, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under sections 147, 148, 294, 307, 323, 325 read with 149 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagli, from where the case was transferred to the Sessions Court. From the Sessions Court, the case has been transferred for trial. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 148, 294, 307 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149, 506-II of IPC, to which appellants abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, they did not adduce any evidence in their defence. 7. Learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the appellants of charge under Section 506-II of IPC and convicted them for the offence under Sections 148, 294, 307 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149 of IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not challenging the conviction part of the impugned judgment, however, he is confining his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He further submits that looking to statements of Dr. Manju Tirki (P.W.-19) and Dr. Dipika Minj (P.W.-20), offence under Section 307 is not made out 5 against the appellants as there is no cogent evidence to show that the injuries sustained by the injured were fatal to their life, therefore, the offence committed by the appellants comes under the ambit of Sections 325 or 326 of IPC. He next added that the incident took place in the year 2005, this appeal is pending since 2007; appellants have already remained in jail for about 10 months. Therefore, considering the above facts, their undergone period may be considered to be sufficient sentence for the alleged offence. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court having appreciated the overall oral and documentary evidence has rightly recorded a finding of guilt against the appellants which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being sans merits is liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 11.It is evident from the trial Court’s record that the learned trial Court framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 294, 307 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149, 506-II of IPC against all the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 506-II of IPC and convicted them under Sections 148, 294, 307 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149 of IPC. However, the appellants are not pressing this appeal on merit but considering the statements of Bharatlal Sahu (P.W.-1), Nageshiyabai (P.W.-2), Santosh @ Lallu Sahu (P.W.-3) and Vishram Sahu (P.W.-6), it is quite vivid that all 6 accused persons assaulted the complainant (P.W.-1) and his wife (P.W.-2) with axe and lathi. 12. As per statements given by Dr. George M. Khakha (P.W.-11), Dr. Smt. Manju Tirki (P.W.-19) and Dr. Dipika Minj (P.W.-20), it is proved that the complainant Bharatlal Sahu (P.W.-1) and his wife Nageshiyabai (P.W.-2) sustained injuries on the date of incident. 13. Dr. Dipika Minj (P.W.-20) states that she found fracture on the right side of the head of injured Bharatlal Shau (P.W.-1) in CT scan report. 14. All three treating doctors found injuries over the body of the injured but they did not state that the injuries sustained by the complainant Bharatlal Sahu were dangerous to his life or fatal to his life. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in the matter of Sivamani and anr. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Vellore reported in CRA 3619 of 2023 in the judgment dated 28.11.2023 held in para 9 which reads as under:- “9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. In the same judgment, it was pointed out that ‘...The court has to see whether the 7 act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.’ The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (supra) and Kanha (supra), it was observed that while grievous or life-threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, ‘ The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.” 16. In the light of above, in the present case, it is clear that the complainant and his wife sustained injuries due to assault done by the appellants and considering the statements of all three treating doctors, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that the injuries sustained by complainant Bharatlal Sahu (P.W.-1) were fatal to his life and it is also evident from statement of Dr. Smt. Manju Tirki (P.W.-19), the injuries sustained by Nageshiyabai (P.W.-2) were simple in nature. 17. Considering the nature of injuries and evidence of the witnesses, it is clear that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the 8 accused/appellants were having any prior intention to inflict the injuries which ultimately could have been fatal to life of the injured and thus, considering the act of the accused/appellants, they are liable to be convicted under Section 326/149 of IPC instead of Section 307/149 of IPC. 18. As regards sentence under Section 326/149 of IPC, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2005 and this appeal is pending since 2007. Appellants have remained in jail for about 10 months, they were on bail during trial and even during pendency of this appeal and nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that they ever misused the liberty granted to them. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 19. With regard to conviction under Sections 323 read with 149, 148 and 294 of IPC, the evidence on record makes it clear that the accused/appellants caused injuries to Nageshiyabai (P.W.-2) which was simple in nature, they uttered obscene words in a public place and were armed with deadly weapon i.e. axe and lathi. Thus, the conviction under the aforesaid sections recorded by the learned trial Court being based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, needs no interference by this Court. The sentence awarded under these sections being proper is also hereby maintained. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants under Sections 323/149, 148 and 294 of IPC and the sentence awarded thereunder by the trial Court are hereby maintained. However, 9 the conviction of the appellants under Section 307/149 is hereby set aside and instead they are held guilty of offence under Section 326/149 of IPC and are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. They are also directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default thereof, they shall suffer additional RI for one month. The fine amount already deposited by the them shall be adjusted accordingly. 21. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 22. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months in view of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV