1 2025:CGHC:55165 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 836 of 2016 Narendra Rathore S/o Chhedilal Rathore Aged About 32 Years R/o Sakti Ward Bhatapara, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O昀케cer Police Station Bhatapara Town, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Rohishek Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 12/11/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.14 16:03:38 +0530 2 of sentence dated 30.06.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. H- 28/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, Districrt Baloda Bazar C.G, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of the IPC R.I. for 5 years & 昀椀ne of Rs. 1,000/- to further undergo R.I. for 3 months in case of non- payment of 昀椀ne. U/s 25 (1) (B) of Arms Act R.I. for 1 year and a 昀椀ne of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of 昀椀ne amount further R.I. 3 months Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that the injured/complainant Santram Jagade, was employed as a Peon at the Municipal Council, Bhatapara, and was also assigned certain supervisory duties over other employees. On 19.09.2015, at about 6:00 a.m., the complainant was sitting on a chair outside the o昀케ce of the Bhatapara Municipal Council, engaged in his o昀케cial work. At that time, Sohanlal Yadav was standing in the veranda, while Sanjay Banjare was seated on a motorcycle parked nearby. At that moment, the accused, 3 Narendra Rathore, who was also employed as a Sanitation Worker in the same Municipal Council, arrived at the spot. He allegedly took out a hand-made iron-bladed sword concealed in his trousers and, while threatening to kill the complainant, attacked him. When the complainant attempted to defend himself, the sword struck his left wrist, causing a deep injury and severing a vein, leading to profuse bleeding. Eye- witnesses Naseem, Sohanlal, and Sanjay Banjare were present at the scene and witnessed the assault. Thereafter, Naseem assisted the injured complainant and took him to the Government Hospital, Bhatapara for treatment. 3. The incident was immediately reported by Ward Councilor Purushottam Yadav to the Station House O昀케cer, Police Station Bhatapara, over the phone. Upon receiving the information, the Police O昀케cer reached the hospital, recorded the complainant’s statement, and registered a Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/01). The injured was provided medical treatment accordingly. 4. During investigation, a hand-made iron sword bearing blood stains was recovered from the spot and seized under Seizure Memo (Ex. P/06). A spot map (Ex. P/04) was prepared, and the 4 applicant’s blood-stained shirt was seized under Ex. P/02. 5. The accused, Narendra Rathore, was arrested, and his memorandum statement (Ex. P/05) was recorded. Pursuant to the said memorandum, one blue T-shirt and maroon coloured lower with blood stains, allegedly worn by the accused at the time of the incident, were seized under Ex. P/08. A blood- stained plastic chair, as well as plain and blood-stained soil, were also seized from the scene under Ex. P/07. 6. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, and a letter was sent to the Medical O昀케cer seeking opinion regarding the injuries and the blood-stained sword. On the basis of the Dehati Nalishi, a First Information Report (Ex. P/18) was registered at Police Station Bhatapara under relevant provisions of law. 7. The seized articles were forwarded to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was 昀椀led against the accused Narendra Rathore for the o昀昀ences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, who took cognizance of the matter. Thereafter, as per the 5 surrender order dated 09.12.2015 passed in Criminal Case No. S-782/2015, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. 8. 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. 9. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30.06.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to law and facts on record and su昀昀ers from gross illegality. It is contended that except for the complainant and the Investigating O昀케cer, no other prosecution witness supported the prosecution case; the alleged eye-witnesses, namely Sanjay Banjare and Nasim Khan, turned hostile, and Nasim Khan even stated that the complainant sustained injuries from the channel gate of the Municipal Council and that the 6 appellant himself took the complainant to the hospital. 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 o昀昀ence; the seizure and memorandum witnesses have turned hostile; the medical o昀케cer did not opine that the injury was su昀케cient to cause death or mention any excessive bleeding; and the sword allegedly recovered from the spot did not bear any sign of dust or other material, contradicting the prosecution version. It is also urged that the memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded unnecessarily and belatedly, rendering it doubtful, and that the FSL report was inconclusive as to whether the blood found on the sword was human blood. 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 half of the jail sentence i.e. 2 years 6 months and the appeal be partly allowed by reducing the sentence already undergone by the appellant. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited 7 which does not call for any interference, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. 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. 13. PW-1, Santram Jagade, stated that he knew the accused present before the Court. He was employed as a Peon at the Municipal Council, Bhatapara. On 19.09.2015, at about 7:00 a.m., while he was assigning duty to the sanitation workers, the accused Narendra Rathore came there and assaulted him with a sword, causing an injury near his left wrist. He further stated that he had earlier raised objections regarding the payment of the accused in the Municipal Council, due to which the accused bore a grudge against him. On account of this enmity, the accused assaulted him and also threatened to kill him. After assaulting him, the accused 昀氀ed from the spot. He deposed that Nasim Khan was present at the time of the incident and had taken him to the Government Hospital, Bhatapara, for treatment. He had orally reported the incident at the said hospital, on the basis of which Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/01) was recorded. He further stated that his medical 8 examination was conducted at the Government Hospital, Bhatapara, and thereafter he received further treatment at Aastha Nursing Home and later at Lifebirth Heart Care Centre, Raipur. 14. PW-2, Sanjay Kumar Banjare deposed that the incident in question had occurred about four to 昀椀ve months prior to his statement. However, he further stated that he had no knowledge regarding the alleged incident, nor did he know what had transpired between the accused and the complainant. He also stated that the police had not recorded his statement in connection with the case. He further stated that the police had not interrogated the accused in his presence, nor had the accused disclosed anything to the police in his presence. He also denied that any article was seized by the police in his presence as per the statement or memorandum of the accused. He further stated that upon being shown the seizure memo (Ex. P/06), but clari昀椀ed that no article was actually seized in his presence from the spot. When shown another seizure memo (Ex. P/07). Thus, the witness did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 15. Nasim Khan (PW-3) deposed that the incident had occurred 9 about 昀椀ve to six months prior to his statement. At about 7:00 a.m., he had gone to the Municipal Council o昀케ce to mark his attendance. At that time, he saw the accused Narendra Rathore taking Santram to the hospital, and he noticed that blood was oozing from Santram’s hand. Upon inquiry, Santram told him that he had sustained the injury from the channel gate of the Municipal Council. The witness further stated that he had no knowledge about what had transpired between the accused and the complainant and that beyond this, he did not know anything else about the incident. Thus, the witness did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 16. Sohan Lal (Pw-5) stated that he was employed as a Chowkidar in the Municipal Council, Bhatapara. He deposed that the incident had occurred about three months prior, at around 6:00 a.m., when he had gone for his morning routine, and upon returning, he saw blood stains on the channel gate of the Municipal Council and some police personnel present at the spot. He further stated that he had not seen the accused or the complainant at the scene, had not witnessed the incident, and had no knowledge about how or where Santram 10 had sustained injuries. Thus, the witness did not support the prosecution case and was treated as hostile. 17. Dr. Rajendra Maheshwari (PW-6) proved his medical examination report (Ex. P-11), according to which the injured Sant Ram Jangde sustained an incised wound measuring 6.1 x 5 cm on the left wrist, deep enough to sever four major veins. The injury could have been caused by a heavy and sharp- edged weapon and was opined to be grievous in nature. Medical witness Dr. Naveen Singh (PW-10) also deposed that the injured had sustained a sharp-cut wound on his left wrist with active bleeding; both the radial and ulnar arteries were ruptured, as well as the median and ulnar nerves, and six tendons were cut. The injuries were surgically repaired by him along with Plastic Surgeon Dr. Asif Menon, and the patient was discharged after six days of hospitalization. The nature of injury was grievous, and upon being questioned by the Court, the witness stated that in the absence of timely and proper treatment, excessive bleeding could have made the injury life- threatening. In cross-examination, the witness denied the suggestion that such an injury could have been caused accidentally by a sharp object. 11 18. Upon a close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that the testimony of the injured witness, PW-1 Santram Jagade, inspires con昀椀dence and remains consistent on material particulars. He has categorically stated that the appellant, Narendra Rathore, assaulted him with a sword, resulting in a deep incised wound on his left wrist. His statement 昀椀nds full corroboration from the medical evidence of PW-6 Dr. Rajendra Maheshwari and PW-10 Dr. Naveen Singh, both of whom have opined that the injury was caused by a sharp-edged weapon and was grievous in nature. The defence has not been able to impeach the credibility of the injured witness, and his version, supported by medical evidence, is su昀케cient to sustain conviction. 19. 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 wrist, and no further attempt was made to strike any vital part of the body. Though the weapon used was dangerous, and the injury grievous, the ingredients necessary 12 to constitute an o昀昀ence under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) are not fully established. 20. 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 326 IPC, i.e., voluntarily causing grievous hurt by a sharp-edged weapon. The 昀椀nding of the trial Court with respect to the o昀昀ence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is a昀케rmed. 21. Having regard to the facts that the occurrence is of the year 2015, the appellant has already undergone about two years and six months of incarceration, and that the incident appears to have occurred on account of a work-related dispute without any premeditated intention to kill, the sentence imposed upon him is modi昀椀ed to the period already undergone, while maintaining the conviction under Section 326 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. 22. Upon perusal, this Court 昀椀nds no interference with the 昀椀nding of conviction, as the same is well-merited, based on credible evidence, and supported by sound reasoning. Hence, the 昀椀nding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is hereby a昀케rmed with a modi昀椀cation in respect of the 13 conviction under Section 326 instead of Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1)(B) of Arms Act. 23. So far as the sentence part is concerned, this Court 昀椀nds 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 a substantial part of his sentence. There is also no material on record to indicate that the appellant has any previous criminal antecedents. 24. 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". 14 Al昀椀eri 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 in昀氀iction 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 o昀昀ender 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 Jeo昀昀rey Streat昀椀eld: "If you are going to have anything to do with the 15 criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences” 25. 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). 26. Considering all these above aspects and also considering the fact that during pendency of this appeal the appellant was on bail since 2018; 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 one year 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. 16 27. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of the IPC, the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court is modi昀椀ed to the period already undergone by him. 28. The appellant is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. He is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are 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. 29. 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 Shoaib/Jyoti