1 2025:CGHC:16299 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 27 of 2016 1 - Gurudayal Singh S/o Shivshankar Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Dubechhola, Badkapara, Post Office And Police Station Khadgawan, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Rekha, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 07/04/2025 1. The present Criminal appeal is heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2015, passed in 2 Sessions Case No. 25/2015 by which the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh (CG),whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 326 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on the date of incident, i.e., on 14.11.2014 guests had come to the applicant’s house at around 4:00-5:00 pm. The accused was cooking non-veg and everyone was drinking alcohol. When applicant’s sister (wife of accused) was serving alcohol to applicant’s wife Sumitra then the applicant protested and quarreled with his sister over the matter. The applicant’s sister told this fact to her husband (accused) upon which the accused got angry and pounced on the applicant due to which the applicant fell then the accused climbed on the applicant’s chest and started strangulating him. At that time, the applicant's elder brother Balwanta intervened and the applicant went inside the house out of fear, then the accused came inside the house and hit the applicant in the stomach with the Akhaini (a sickle-like tool with an iron tip attached to a bamboo stick, which is used while threshing paddy) kept above the door of the house, due to which he got injured on the left side of the lower part of the stomach and some part of the intestine came out. The applicant was taken to Khadgawa police station by his relatives where he 3 was informed about the incident. He was first taken to Khadgawan Hospital and from there to Baikunthpur Hospital where the applicant was admitted and treated. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 11 witnesses. Statements of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described above of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant and therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated and considered the documents available on record. Being so, the impugned judgment is strictly in accordance with law and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record placed on record. 9. From perusal of records it transpires that the complainant namely Bali Singh was sitting in his house on 14.11.2014 and his wife was preparing dinner for his family. On that day, the accused/appellant who is brother-in-law (jija) of the complainant forced the wife of complainant to drink liquor upon which the complainant denied. The accused got angry and with intent to commit murder of the complainant he hit the complainant with लोहे का अखैनी in stomach as a result of which the complainant’s intestine came out of his body. 10. PW-01/ complainant has stated in his examination-in-chief that on the date of incident guests had come to the applicant’s house at around 4:00-5:00 pm. The accused was cooking non-veg and everyone was drinking alcohol. When applicant’s sister (wife of accused) was serving alcohol to applicant’s wife Sumitra then the applicant protested and quarreled with his sister over the matter. The applicant’s sister told this fact to her husband (accused) upon which the accused got angry and pounced on the applicant due to which the applicant fell then the accused climbed on the applicant’s chest and started strangulating him. At that time, the applicant's elder brother Balwanta intervened and the applicant went inside the house out of fear, then the accused came inside the house and hit the applicant in the stomach with the Akhaini (a sickle-like tool with an iron tip attached to a bamboo stick, which is 5 used while threshing paddy) kept above the door of the house, due to which he got injured on the left side of the lower part of the stomach and some part of the intestine came out. The applicant was taken to Khadgawa police station by his relatives where he was informed about the incident. He was first taken to Khadgawan Hospital and from there to Baikunthpur Hospital where the applicant was admitted and treated. 11. PW-5/ applicant’s brother (Balwant Singh) although being hostile, has expresses ignorance about how the applicant got injured, but has stated that the applicant got an injury in his stomach on the day of the incident. In this way, the applicant's stomach injury is also supported by the testimony of witness Balwanta Singh. The testimony of the above witnesses reveals that the applicant suffered an injury in his stomach on the day of the incident. 12. PW-11/ Inspector K. S. Rathia has deposed in examination-in- chief that on the date of incident itself the applicant lodged an FIR (Ex. P-1) bearing no. 181/2014 under Section 307 of IPC against the accused. Head Constable Shailendra Tripathi (PW-9) has certified Exhibit P-10 stating that after the crime was registered, the injured Bali Singh was sent to the Community Health Centre, Khadgwan. Constable Santosh Kumar (PW-7) has stated that the injured Bali Singh was taken to Community Health Center Khargwan for medical examination. There was no contradiction on any material point in the cross-examination of the testimony of the said police witnesses. In this way, from the statements of the 6 witnesses, it appears that immediately after the incident, the applicant lodged a named report against the accused in the Police Station Kharagwan regarding the incident and the physical examination of the injured Bali Singh was done by the Medical Officer of the Government Hospital, Khadgawan. 13. Dr. S. Kujur (PW-6) the doctor who medically examined the injured Bali Singh has deposed in the examination-in-chief that on 04.11.2014, he had examined the injuries of injured Bali Singh who was brought by constable Santosh of Khadgaon police station. The victim was shaking during the examination. There was a stab wound in the stomach of the victim and some of the material inside the stomach (the membrane of the stomach) was protruding. The size of the injury was 1.4 cm x 0.1 cm and the depth was till the waist of the stomach. According to this witness, the injury was of serious nature which was caused by a hard and sharp weapon and the said injury occurred between one and one and a half hours before the examination. In view of the serious condition of the patient, the injured was referred to the District Hospital, Baikunthpur. No challenge has been made by the defense in cross-examination regarding the injuries caused to the victim's body. In this way, the testimony of the injured Bali Singh that he had suffered injury in his stomach and the fact that due to the said injury, some of the material inside the stomach and a part of the stomach had come out, is also supported by the medical evidence. 7 14. Although the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, Navrang Singh (PW-4), Sumitra Bai (PW-8) and Balwanta Singh (PW-5) have not supported the prosecution story, but from the perusal of evidence and documents available on record, first information report (Exhibit P-1), M.L.C. report (Exhibit P-6) it is evident that within one hour after the incident, a named report regarding the incident was made against the accused in the Police Station Khadgwa and on the same date, within one hour of the incident, the victim was sent to the Government Hospital Khadgwan and it is evident that the witnesses Sumitra Bai and Balwanta Singh are close relatives of the accused. In such a situation, despite the said witnesses being hostile, there does not appear any basis for disbelieving the prosecution's story on the basis of the evidence available on record. 15. Now the important question to be considered is whether the accused intentionally or knowingly caused injury to the applicant and whether the said injuries caused to the applicant were of fatal nature? After scrutinizing the evidence in this regard, it is clear from the testimony of applicant Bali Singh that when accused Gurudayal Singh came to the place of incident, his wife told him that Bali Singh is quarreling with her. Accused Gurudayal Singh got angry on this matter and started abusing the applicant. Thus, in the case at hand, there is no such situation on record that the accused attacked the applicant in self-defense or due to provocation caused by the applicant. 8 16. It is a well-established principle of law that "intention" must in all cases be ascertained from the circumstances, the nature of the weapon used and the manner in which it is used, the motive for the offence, the hardness of the blow, the part of the body to which the injury is inflicted, are some of the facts which may be taken into account in ascertaining the intention. 17. In this regard, it is clear from the evidence of Dr. S. Kujur (PW 6) that the wound on the victim's stomach was 1.4 cm x 0.1 cm which was deep up to the sternum and the intestinal membrane inside the stomach was protruding. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the cross-examination, this witness has clearly admitted that the injury caused to the victim was not life threatening and the injury caused to the victim was likely to be cured with treatment of about a week. 18. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants under Section 326 of IPC. 19. As regards the sentence awarded to them. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2015 and thereafter 9 more than 10 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appellants at present and further considering 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 and there is no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant and further the appellant has already undergone 1 year 2 months and 3 days of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 20. Consequently, the appeal is partly-allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of IPC is affirmed and the against the conviction he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 21. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. His bail bond are not discharged 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. 22. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima