1 2025:CGHC:18010 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2016 Rampukar Yadav S/o Shri Manbodh Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Champapur, Police Station Chalgali, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ...Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chalgali, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For State : Mr. Rishabh Singh Deo, Panel lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board (21.04.2025) 1. This appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short CrPC) has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.12.2015 passed by the Learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Sarguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh in Special Session Case No. 30/2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- 2 Conviction Sentences Under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code,1860 Imprisonment for the period already undergone in custody and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional imprisonment for one month. Under Section 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Imprisonment for the period already undergone in custody and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount additional imprisonment for one month. 2. Brief facts of the case are such that, the complainant on 01.01.2013 filed an oral complaint against the accused appellant stating that she asked for milk and whey from the appellant upon which the appellant accused with an allegation to the effect that the complainant has caused black magic (Pang) and on account of this reason there is no availability of milk and whey for drinking and at the same time the accused assaulted the complainant with the help of Tangi, and consequently, the complainant received injuries on her palm. 3. That after investigation charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 324 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Wadrafnagar, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh and thereafter this case was committed to the learned Session Corut Sarguja Chhattisgarh from where the same was received by the Learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Sarguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh. 4. That, charges under Sections 324 and 342 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act, 1989 were framed against the appellant. In order to prove the guilt 3 of the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses in her favor. The appellant denied the charges, pleaded innocence and claimed for trial. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the above mentioned crime. The appellant has got examined one witness namely Damodar Prasad (DW-01) in his defense. 5. On 05.12.2015 the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Sarguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh has acquitted the appellant of the charges framed under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act, 1989 but convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 324 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that impugned conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is invalid, improper, contrary to law and procedure. He stated that there are major contradictions between the prosecution witnesses police statements and their court statements. It is also worth to be noted that there are substantial developments in the prosecution witnesses court statement. Therefore, the learned trial court should have acquitted the appellant of charges framed under Sections 324 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. He also contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of Section 324 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, learned trial court should have acquitted the appellant of charges framed under sections 324 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. He stated that after due diligence and 4 consideration the trial court has convicted the present appellant under the said sections. Prosecution has undoubtedly proved her case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence interference to the judgment so passed by the concerned trial court would largely affect the justice of the victim. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused entire evidence adduced by the complainant and gone through the evidence available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. According to the facts presented in the evidence of the complainant witness Laljit and Naresh Singh reached the spot on hearing her screams. It is noteworthy that Laljit is the son of the complainant . He has testified that the incident took place on new year’s day around 8-9 PM. At that time, he had gone to Naresh’s house. At the time of incident, when he heard the mother’s voice from Rampukar’s house he ran towards Rampukar’s house. He found that his mother was outside Rampukar’s house. The right hand of his mother was cut with an axe. When he asked his mother, she told him that the accused had hit her with a tangi calling her witch. Due to which she had sustained an injury in her hand. 10. PW-01 Naresh Singh too has supported the depositions of the complainant as well s Laljit (PW-07). 11. PW-03 Dr. R.B. Prajapati has deposed that he has examined Fhoolmania on 03.01.2012 (Ex. P-03) and found that there was a cut in between the thumb and finger of the hand of 2x1/4x1/4 cm. He stated that the cut was caused with 5 some hard and blunt object. The injury was simple in nature. A Tangi was also brought before him for examination by the Police. On examination of the Tangi, it was found that a bamboo stick of length 40 cm and weight of 350 grams. There was a blood like stain on both the sides of the blade of the tangi. According to Foolmaniya the injury was caused by this tangi only. The tangi was examined and exhibited as Ex.P-04. 12. Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It specifies that whoever voluntarily causes hurt by using instruments for shooting, stabbing, or cutting, or any weapon likely to cause death, or by using fire, poison, corrosive substances, explosives, or substances harmful to the human body, or by using an animal, shall be punished with imprisonment, a fine, or both. Thus looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it is pertinent that the appellant hit the complainant with a tangi due to which the complainant suffered injury in her hand. Hence the very ingredient of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 13. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the punishment for wrongful confinement. It states that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment, a fine, or both. Thus from the very 6 statement of the complainant it is clear that when she went to the appellant’s house in search of his son, the appellant told her to go inside and the appellant locked the door from inside. Hence the offence under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly made out. I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 342 and 324 of the IPC. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court with regard to the conviction part. Ordered accordingly. 14. In view of above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court to the appellant is hereby affirmed/maintained. 15. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed . The conviction of the appellant under the aforementioned sections is affirmed. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza