1 2025:CGHC:55112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1096 of 2003 1 - (Abated), Keshar Singh As Per Honble Court Order Dated 16-01- 2024. 2 - Raju @ Pappu @ Veerendra Singh S/o Keshar Singh Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Gopalnagar (Arasmeta), P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate through Legal Aid For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 12/11/2025 1. Since no one was appearing on behalf of the appellants, as such Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate, who is in in the panel of Legal Aid, is appointed on behalf of the appellants to contest the case. 2. The Secretary, High Court Legal Aid Committee is directed to Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 issue authorization letter in favour of Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate in this regard. 3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.10.2003 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Janjgir, Session Section Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Trial No.370/2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant No.1 Keshar Singh was residing in the house of complainant Shankaracharya Dubey as tenant and he had encroached some portion of his house, upon which there was dispute between them and court proceedings were going on. On the date of incident on 11.02.2002 when the complainant Shankaracharya along with his son Chandraprakash was returning on motorcycle, the appellants and other assaulted him by road, sword etc and took her motorcycle and fled away, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries and was hospitalized, thereafter a case was registered against the accused and they were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellants before the Magistrate concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material 3 available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witnesses PW-7 to PW-12 are hearsay witnesses, hence their testimony cannot be relied upon and the injuries sustained by the complainant are also simple in nature, but the learned Trial Court did not consider the above said aspect of the matter and has wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, He submits that the incident took place in the year 2002, this appeal is pending since 2003, during pendency of the appeal the appellant No.1 has died, whereas the appellant No.2 remained in jail for more than 1 year and presently he is aged about 55 years of age, therefore, the appellant No.2 may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 8. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 307, 397 & 341 of IPC against the appellants. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 397 & 341 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 9. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.1 Keshar Singh has died. 10. The complainant PW-1 Shankaracharya Dubey stated that on the date of incident, when he was going to take money for buying motorcycle, the appellant No.1 assaulted him by sword, whereas the appellant No.2 assaulted him by a sharp edged weapon, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries on head and other parts of the body and got fainted. 11. PW-2 Chandraprakash, son of complainant, supported the statement of the complainant. He stated that one person informed him that his father is lying having blood stained, upon which he went to the spot and saw that his father was fainted and blood was oozing from his body and when he regained consciousness he told that the accused persons assaulted him by sword. 12. PW-15 Dr. R. K. Gupta examined the injured Shankaracharya on 11.02.2002 and found 17 injuries on his body. He referred him for surgical specialist and orthopedic specialist and gave his report 5 (Ex-P/10). As per this witness, injured was admitted in Sardar Patel, Bilaspur from 11.02.2002 to 09.03.2002 and discharge ticket is Ex-P/11. 13. PW-16 Dr. S. Chatterjee stated that he conducted x-ray of complainant and as per x-ray report, he found fracture in ulna bone and gave his report (Ex-P/12). 14. PW-20 Parsuram Painkra lodged dehati nalisi (Ex-P/6) on the information of complainant and admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. 15. Looking to the statements of complainant and other witnesses including the medical evidence, it is clear that the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the appellants for the offence under Sections 341 & 397 of IPC and rightly convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 16. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2002, this appeal is pending since 2003, during pendency of the appeal the appellant No.1 has died, whereas the appellant No.2 remained in jail for more than 1 year and presently he is aged about 55 years of age, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellant No.2 is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the appellant No.2 is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 17. The appeal is partly allowed. 18. The appellant No.2 is reported to be on bail. 6 19. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant No.2 is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the Court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala