1 2025:CGHC:55100 NAFR The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full -- 13.11.2025 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 970 of 2003 1 - Chandu Lal, S/o Chait Ram Yadav, Aged about 24 years, R/o Shukra Wari Para, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through: District Magistrate District- Durg. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Mohammad Asif appears on behalf of Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Additional Advocate General Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 2 12/11/2025 1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.08.2003, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 291/2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 309 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Bindu (P.W.-5) had a dispute with the accused, Chandlal, approximately two years prior to the date of the incident. Owing to the ill health of complainant Bindu, her brother Bhushan (P.W.-2) took her to his residence on 12.09.2002. Complainant Bindu was accompanied by her seven-month-old son. After her departure, the accused, Chandlal, proceeded to his in-laws’ house to bring her back. However, due to her ill health, the family members of Bindu refused to send her with him. Consequently, the accused took the infant child along with him. Subsequently, the mother of the accused also came to take Bindu back, but due to her continuing 3 ill health, her family again declined to send her. The child, therefore, remained in the custody of the complainant. On the date of incident i.e. on 30.09.2002, complainant Bindu (P.W.-5) was on her way to the hospital for medical treatment when she was intercepted by the accused, Chandlal, on the way. The accused insisted that she accompany him to Dongargarh, otherwise hand over the child to him. On her refusal, the accused assaulted her with his hands and a rod. When Bindu pleaded that she was unwell and would return after recovery, the accused took out a knife and inflicted blows on her right chest and abdomen, causing her to fall unconscious. The accused then attempted to drag her away, but upon being restrained by nearby persons, he inflicted an injury upon himself with the same knife. On receiving information about the incident, Bhushan (P.W.-2), the brother of the complainant arrived at the spot and found both his sister, Bindu, and the accused, Chandlal, lying unconscious. He immediately shifted them to the hospital and lodged a report at the concerned Police Station vide Ex.P/2. On 30.09.2002, Sub-Inspector Jayveer Singh (PW-9) registered the First Information Report (Ex.P/28) under Sections 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code and proceeded to the spot for investigation. From the spot, an iron weapon (Gupti) having a length of 7 inches and width of 2 inches with an iron handle was seized in the presence of witnesses Shatrughan and Suresh vide Ex.P/6. On 01.10.2002, Bhushanlal produced his sister’s clothes 4 from the hospital, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/4. The clothes of the accused were also seized vide Ex.P-3. On 09.10.2002, the Investigating Officer submitted an application (Ex.P-11A) for forensic examination, and the seized articles were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. The acknowledgment of receipt is Ex.P/17, and the FSL report was received as Ex.P/16. Assistant Sub-Inspector R.L. Bagh (PW-8) prepared requisitions for medical examination—Ex.P/7A in respect of the accused Chandlal and Ex.P/8A for the complainant Bindu and also recorded Ex.P/12 regarding their fitness to make statements. 3. Dr. Ashok Kumar Soni (PW-7) examined Bindu, wife of Chandlal, on 30.09.2002 and found an incised wound measuring 10.5 cm × 0.5 cm on the right side of her chest, caused within 24 hours by a hard, sharp-edged weapon and submitted his report (Ex.P/7). He also examined the accused Chandlal and found a similar incised wound measuring 10.5 cm × 0.5 cm on his right chest, inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon, and submitted his report (Ex.P/4). The complainant, Bindu, was admitted to the Female Surgical Ward, while the accused, Chandlal, was admitted to the Male Surgical Ward. Their respective case sheets were prepared (Ex.P/9 and Ex.P/10). The medical opinion was that the injuries sustained by the accused could be caused by the seized Gupti, and such injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The seized weapon (Gupti) was also examined, and report 5 Ex.P-11 was submitted in that regard. A spot map (Ex.P/1) of the place of occurrence was prepared by Tribhuvan Verma (PW-1). After completion of the investigation and recording of statements of witnesses, the accused was found prima facie guilty, and a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. The matter was thereafter committed to the Court of Session for trial in accordance with law. The learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 307 and 309 of IPC against the appellant, to which appellant abjured his guild and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 5. Learned trial Court, upon due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant under Sections 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as detailed in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Judge has erred in convicting the appellant under Sections 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction is unjust, unwarranted, and contrary to the settled principles of law. There is 6 no cogent or reliable evidence on record to establish that the injury allegedly caused by the appellant to the victim was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The charge framed under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code is unconstitutional, as the said provision has been declared to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court are liable to be set aside. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not intend to challenge the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court; however, his submissions are confined only to the quantum of sentence. He further submits that the incident in question occurred in the year 2002 and the present appeal has been pending since 2003. At the time of the incident, the appellant was about 24 years of age, and as of now, he is approximately 47 years old. The appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of more than ten months. Therefore, considering the long lapse of time, the age of the appellant, and the period already undergone by him, it is prayed that the said period may be treated as sufficient sentence for the offence in question. 7. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. He submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and has 7 recorded a well-reasoned finding of guilt against the appellant under Sections 307 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that the injuries sustained by the victim were caused by a sharp-edged weapon on vital parts of the body, clearly indicating the intention of the appellant to cause death, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned State Counsel further submits that the plea regarding the unconstitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code is not tenable in the present case, as the same was very much in force at the time of the commission of the offence and the judgment of the Trial Court was delivered accordingly. He, therefore, prays that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394, declared Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code to be unconstitutional, observing that a person attempting suicide requires care, compassion, and rehabilitation rather than punishment. Furthermore, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is to replace the Indian Penal Code, Section 309 has been omitted entirely. A new provision, namely Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, provides for penal liability only in cases where an attempt to commit suicide is made with the intent to compel or restrain a public servant from discharging his lawful duty. 8 10. In Ku. Shital Dinkar Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra (2024), the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay quashed the FIR registered under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 override Section 309 of IPC. The Court observed that under Section 115 of the said Act, a person who attempts suicide is presumed to be under severe stress, and such an individual cannot be subjected to prosecution and punishment under Section 309 of IPC. 11. Bhushan Yadav (P.W.-2) deposed that the accused is his brother- in-law and the complainant, Bindu, is his sister. He further stated that on the date of the incident, when his sister Bindu (P.W.-5) was on her way to the hospital for treatment, the accused intercepted her on the way and assaulted her with a knife. 12. Ramesh Sahu (P.W.-4) stated that he saw that the accused was holding a woman by her leg. He then took out a knife and inflicted a stab injury on her abdomen. Thereafter, the accused stabbed himself with the same knife. He admits his signature from B to B part on seizures memo (Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4). 13. Complainant- Bindu (P.W.-5) stated that she used to visit the hospital daily for about two to four days. On one such occasion, while she was on her way, the accused intercepted her and demanded that she hand over her son to him. She further stated that when the accused assaulted the child, she did not raise any alarm, and thereafter, the accused inflicted a knife injury on her 9 stomach. It was also stated that subsequent to stabbing her, the accused stabbed himself with the same knife. 14. Dr. Ashok Kumar Soni (P.W.-7) examined the complainant- Bindu and found an incised wound on the right side of her chest, below the breast. He prepared her medical report vide Ex.P/7 in this regard. The complainant was thereafter admitted to the female surgical ward for treatment. 15. Upon careful consideration of the evidence on record, it is evident that the prosecution has successfully established that the accused/appellant assaulted the complainant, Bindu (P.W.-5), with a sharp-edged weapon, causing an incised wound on her right chest, which is a vital part of the body. The medical evidence of Dr. Ashok Kumar Soni (P.W.-7) corroborates the ocular version of the witnesses, particularly that of Bindu (P.W.-5) and Bhushan Yadav (P.W.-2). The injuries were opined to have been caused by a hard and sharp-edged weapon and were sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. 16. The act of the appellant, in assaulting the complainant on a vital part of her body with a deadly weapon, clearly demonstrates his intention and knowledge that such act was likely to cause her death. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as recorded by the learned trial Court, is well-founded and warrants no interference by this Court. 10 17. However, as regards the conviction under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, it is pertinent to note that the said provision has been declared unconstitutional in P. Rathinam v. Union of India (supra), and the same stands substantially overridden by Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, which presumes that a person attempting suicide is under severe stress and exempts such person from prosecution and punishment under Section 309 of IPC. The legislative intent, as reflected in the subsequent enactment and judicial pronouncements, is to treat such acts with compassion and medical care rather than criminal sanction. 18. In light of the above settled legal position, the conviction of the appellant under Section 309 of IPC cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 19. As regards the sentence imposed under Section 307 of IPC, the incident pertains to the year 2002 and the appeal has remained pending since 2003. The appellant was about 24 years of age at the time of the incident and is presently around 47 years old. He has already undergone incarceration for more than ten months. Considering the lapse of time, the nature of the incident, the age of the appellant, and the period already undergone, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence already undergone by the appellant is treated as sufficient punishment for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. 11 20. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is affirmed, but the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 309 of IPC. 21. The appellant is reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned 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. 22. 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/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi 12 (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV