1 CRA No. 1117 of 2016 2025:CGHC:50132 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1117 of 2016 1 - Ghana @ Dilip Munda S/o S/o Devratan, Aged About 25 Years R/o Darripara, Ambikapur, Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Sajan @ Sajjan, S/o Shivkumar Nageshiya, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Bakna, Police Station- Lundra, At Present Mahamaya Para, Nahar Road, Ambikapur, Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Vipin @ Vicky, S/o Rambilas Nagesh, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Kardoni, Police Station- Lundra, At Present Mahamaya Para, Nahar Road, Ambikapur, Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. AG RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.10.14 11:32:21 +0530 2 CRA No. 1117 of 2016 Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 08/10/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27/08/2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 36/2014 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of ₹ 500/- each, with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that Mantosh Munda (PW13), a resident of Darripara, Ambikapur, had been working for several years as a laborer at Aslam’s tyre shop near Kharsia Chowk. On 30/12/2013, while returning home in the evening by bicycle from the shop, he was allegedly followed by the accused, Dhana Munda alias Dilip, along with his two companions, Sajan alias Sajjan and Vicky alias Vipin, on a motorcycle. The accused allegedly took him to Bhatupura pond, where Dhana alias Dilip confronted the complainant, using abusive language over a personal matter and ignoring his refusals. The accused, with the assistance of the other two, allegedly assaulted the complainant with sharp-edged weapons, causing life-threatening injuries to his head, both legs, and genital area. The complainant managed to escape by running toward Gahira Guru Ashram near Sawan, at which point the accused left 3 CRA No. 1117 of 2016 the scene. He then informed Sawan, Ramesh, Neetu Munda, and his father about the incident. Based on this information, Ambikapur Police registered FIR No. 659/2013 under Sections 307/34 IPC. During the investigation, Assistant Sub-Inspector B.D. Yadav (PW7) visited the scene, prepared a site map, recorded memorandum statements of the accused, and seized relevant items, including a folding knife from Dhana alias Dilip and screwdrivers from the other accused. The complainant’s clothing was also seized. Medical examinations of the complainant and forensic examination of the seized weapons were conducted by Dr. Sarita Singh (PW4), Dr. J. Ekka (PW5), and Dr. Ajay Gupta (PW8), who submitted reports confirming the injuries. Patwari Dharmendra Singh (PW12) also prepared a site plan based on the complainant’s description. After completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, on 28/02/2014 and later forwarded to the Sessions Court on 16/04/2014. Charges under Sections 307/34 IPC were framed against the accused on 15/09/2014. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seventeen witnesses. The statement of the appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein they denied the allegations and pleaded innocence, asserting that they had been falsely implicated. However, no witness was examined in defence. After appreciating the entire evidence and statements of the 4 CRA No. 1117 of 2016 witnesses, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated. It is contended that even if the prosecution version is accepted in its entirety, the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not made out. The essential requirement of Section 307 IPC is the intention or knowledge to cause death, and the medical evidence on record does not support such inference. The reports of Dr. Sarita Singh (PW4), Dr. J. Ekka (PW5), and Dr. Ajay Gupta (PW8) do not state that the injuries sustained by the complainant were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or were of such a nature as to endanger life. At the highest, the incident may fall within the purview of Section 325 IPC relating to voluntarily causing grievous hurt. It is further submitted that the appellants have already undergone custody for about one year and three months, and the occurrence is of more than twelve years ago. Therefore, even if the conviction is upheld under a lesser offence, the sentence may be suitably reduced to the period already undergone. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court are based on due appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses and therefore, no interference with the same is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5 CRA No. 1117 of 2016 6. The question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the act of the appellant, even if accepted in its entirety as alleged by the prosecution, would amount to an offence under Section 325 IPC rather than Section 307 IPC, in view of the medical evidence which indicates that the injuries sustained by the complainant, though serious, were not sufficient to endanger life. 7. Complainant, Mantosh Munda (PW13), stated that the incident occurred on 30/12/2013 while he was returning home in the evening from Aslam Tyre Shop, where he worked as a laborer. According to him, the accused persons were present near the shop and began following him on a motorcycle. Near Matushara Napka Godown, the accused allegedly stopped him, with Sajan and Vicky seizing his bicycle and dragging him into the field. The complainant stated that Sajan and Vicky held his mouth and neck and threatened to kill him, while Dilip threw a stone at his leg. The complainant further deposed that the accused then produced a four-pronged screwdriver and a knife, striking him on his thighs, genital area, knees, and head. He managed to escape after repeatedly shouting, but the accused persons chased him and continued assaulting him, claiming that he had been speaking to Dilip’s wife over the phone. The complainant denied any such conversation. He reportedly lost consciousness for about ten minutes, after which the accused persons left the scene. Upon regaining consciousness, he went to Gahira Guru Ashram, where local women and Sawan were present. He narrated the entire incident to Sawan, who, along with Ramesh, helped him return 6 CRA No. 1117 of 2016 home by motorcycle. The complainant then informed his brother and father, who assisted him in filing a report at Manipur Police Station and getting admitted to District Hospital, Ambikapur. The complainant stated that a site map of the incident was prepared by the Patwari according to his description (Exhibit P-42), and he had signed it. Portions of his blood-stained clothes, torn during the assault, were seized by the police (Exhibit P-8), and he confirmed his signature on the seizure memo. He identified the accused persons in the presence of witnesses, including Gorelal, near Bhatupura School, and confirmed the identification before the court. He deposed that prior to the incident, there had been tensions between his family and the accused’s family, and that the accused persons had assaulted him about 15–20 days earlier, but he did not report it due to fear of passing through the same route. He denied any previous misconduct with Dilip’s wife, stating that the assault by the accused was unprovoked. He clarified that he had informed the police about the specific weapons used by the accused, including a four- pronged screwdriver and knife, during the FIR and subsequent statements. The complainant also stated that the incident occurred around 8:30 PM, when it was already dark in December, and that he personally knew accused Sajan and Vicky. He denied giving false information to the police or the court and asserted that the injuries inflicted by the accused persons were serious and life-threatening. He further stated that the police did not involve independent witnesses during the investigation and that his father and brother were present 7 CRA No. 1117 of 2016 throughout the investigation and the preparation of relevant documents. In cross-examination, the complainant denied that he had any prior enmity with the accused sufficient to fabricate the incident and maintained that he had provided a truthful account of the assault, including the sequence of events, injuries, and involvement of each accused, both during his statements to the police and before the court. 8. Sawan Kerketta (PW1) in his examination-in-chief deposed that he saw the Complainant lying near Gehra Guru Ashstram, Ring road, whereupon he brought him to complainant’s house and left him there, subsequently, the Complainant was taken to the Hospital. This witness has admitted that when the Complainant was asked as to who had assaulted him, he was not in a position to tell the name of the assaulter. 9. Taslim Khan (PW3), in his examination-in-chief, deposed that the complainant worked in his tyre shop and, on the date of the incident, as usual, after closing the shop, he went to his house. On the following day, a family member of the complainant informed him over mobile phone that the appellants had assaulted the complainant. Subsequently, this witness rushed to the hospital, where he saw that the complainant had sustained injuries on different parts of his body. The complainant also informed him that, as the appellants were holding a grudge against him, they had assaulted him. 10. Neetu Ram (PW3), brother of the Complainant, deposed that on the date of incident, the Complainant was returning back to his home. Thereafter 8 CRA No. 1117 of 2016 he was brought to the home in injured condition and on being asked to the complainant, he told that the appellants assaulted him. 11. On an overall appreciation of the evidence of the injured witness Mantosh Munda (PW13), duly supported by the testimonies of Sawan Kerketta (PW1), Taslim Khan (PW3), and Neetu Ram (PW10), this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully established that it was the appellants who assaulted the complainant. The consistent and categorical version of the complainant, corroborated by the surrounding circumstances and duly proved by the seizure memos and site plan, leaves no manner of doubt about the complicity of the appellants in the offence. Having held thus, the Court is now required to consider the submission of learned counsel for the appellants, who has argued with vehemence that the nature of the act would not attract Section 307 IPC but would at best fall within the ambit of Section 325 IPC. 12. Dr. Sarita Singh (PW4), Medical Officer, District Hospital, Ambikapur, deposed that she has been serving in the said hospital since the year 2000. She stated that on 30/12/2013, the injured/complainant Mantosh was advised by Emergency Medical Officer Dr. Ajay Gupta to undergo abdominal sonography. On 03/01/2014, she conducted the sonography of the abdomen of the injured and found that the internal organs were normal and there was no effusion in the abdomen or chest. She further stated that on 02/01/2014, an X-ray plate of the right leg of the injured was brought before her for examination, which had been prepared at District Hospital, Ambikapur by Constable No. 23 of Manipur. On 9 CRA No. 1117 of 2016 examining the plate, she found that the fibula bone was fractured (mid- shaft). In cross-examination, she admitted that no serious internal injury was found in the abdomen or chest of the injured. She further admitted that the X-ray had been taken by a radiographer, though the name of the radiographer was not mentioned in the report. She clarified that no sonography of the genital region was advised, hence no report was prepared in that regard. 13. Dr. J. Ekka (PW5), Medical Officer at District Hospital, stated that he has been serving at the hospital since 2010. He deposed that in December 2013, the injured Mantosh Munda was under treatment at the hospital. He further stated that on 18/01/2014, the Police Relief Centre, Manipur, sought his expert opinion regarding the nature of injuries sustained by Mantosh Munda. After reviewing the available medical records, including sonography and X-ray reports, he observed that the X- ray of the right leg revealed a fracture of the fibula. He noted that this injury was serious in nature, while the other injuries on the body were of a relatively minor nature. In cross-examination, he admitted that the police had asked for his opinion specifically regarding injuries on the occipital and parietal regions of the head, right ear, and near the genitalia. No opinion was sought for other injuries. He confirmed that all injuries, except the fibula fracture, were such that they would have healed naturally without medical treatment and did not pose a threat to life. He further stated that 10 CRA No. 1117 of 2016 he could not ascertain the exact cause or manner in which the injuries were inflicted. He clarified that it is possible for a fracture to occur if a person falls on a hard object or strikes a rigid surface, but the exact circumstances of the injury could only be determined by an orthopedic specialist or radiologist. 14. Dr. Ajay Gupta (PW8), Medical Officer formerly posted at District Hospital, Ambikapur, deposed that on 30/12/2013, the injured Mantosh Munda, son of Awadhesh, aged about 25 years, was brought to the Emergency OPD by 10:30 PM, and he was admitted for treatment. At the time of admission, the patient was conscious, with a pulse of 70 per minute and blood pressure 120/80 mmHg. He examined the following injuries: i. Lacerated wound on the left parieto-occipital region of the scalp, measuring approximately 2 cm × 1 cm × 1 cm. ii. Lacerated wound on the right parietal bone, measuring 4 cm × 1.5 cm × 1 cm. iii. Lacerated wound on the middle third of the right tibia, measuring approximately 3 cm × 1 cm × 1 cm. iv. Three puncture wounds on the medial aspect of the right leg, each approximately 1 cm × 1 cm. v. Lacerated wound on the right foot, approximately 3 cm × 5 cm. vi. Three puncture wounds on the front of the left leg, each approximately 2 cm × 1 cm. vii. Incised wound near the penis and lower abdomen, measuring approximately 4 cm × 2 cm. 11 CRA No. 1117 of 2016 viii. Multiple lacerated wounds on the posterior aspect of the left thigh, each approximately 3 cm × 1 cm. He opined that injuries 1, 2, 3, and 8 could have been caused by a hard and blunt object, while injuries 4, 5, 6, and 7 could have been caused by a hard and sharp object. The injuries appeared to have been inflicted about six hours prior to his examination. The injured was admitted to the Male Surgical Ward and was advised for abdominal sonography, and a surgeon was urgently called for consultation. In cross-examination, he admitted that no police report regarding the injuries had been received at the time of initial examination. He stated that lacerated wounds could also result from accidental falls or collisions with hard surfaces. He clarified that he had not specifically stated in his reports that the injuries were caused by assault; his opinion was based on the nature of the objects and the injuries. He also confirmed that some minor errors, including the year (2013 instead of 2014) in the exhibits, were clerical in nature. 15. On a careful consideration of the medical evidence, it is evident that the injured/complainant Mantosh Munda sustained multiple injuries as described by Dr. Sarita Singh (PW4), Dr. J. Ekka (PW5), and Dr. Ajay Gupta (PW8). While the complainant suffered a fibula fracture in the right leg, which is a serious injury, the examination of the abdomen and chest revealed no internal injuries or effusion, and no medical opinion suggested that the injuries were life-threatening. The remaining injuries, including lacerated and puncture wounds on various parts of the body, 12 CRA No. 1117 of 2016 though caused by hard and sharp objects, were of such a nature that they could have healed naturally without posing a threat to life. 16. The medical evidence thus establishes that while the assault caused grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 320 IPC, it did not endanger the life of the complainant or have the propensity to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In view of these findings, the act of the appellants falls squarely within the ambit of Section 325 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) and does not attract the more serious charge under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder). Therefore, although the culpability of the appellants in inflicting grievous injuries is clearly proved, the evidence does not support the conclusion that there was an intention or knowledge to cause death. 17. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that while the appellants are clearly guilty of assaulting the complainant, the medical evidence does not support the conclusion that they intended to cause death or knew that their acts were likely to cause death. The injuries sustained by the complainant, though grievous, do not fall within the ambit of Section 307 IPC, but are rightly covered under Section 325 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt). The prosecution has, therefore, established the commission of an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of the injuries and the period of custody already undergone by the appellants, this Court is of the view that the sentence imposed by the 13 CRA No. 1117 of 2016 trial Court under Section 307 IPC requires modification. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants is modified to Section 325 of the IPC. 19. 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, 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 14 CRA No. 1117 of 2016 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” 20. 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). 21. So far as, the sentence part is concerned, considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, looking to the injury sustained by injured, as per MLC, the fact that the incident took place around 12 years ago, the age of the appellant at the relevant time i.e. 25 years; 19 years; and 22 years, respectively; during pendency of this appeal, they were on bail; 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) this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellants back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served, if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 15 CRA No. 1117 of 2016 22. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 IPC is set aside and substituted with a conviction under Section 325/34 IPC. The appellants are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone (one year and three months). However, the fine imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain unaltered. 23. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bond shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 24. The trial Court record, along with a copy of this judgment, be sent back immediately to the concerned trial Court for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri