1 2025:CGHC:20740 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.562 of 2008 1 - Resham Lal, S/o Jawahar Lal Chandra, aged about 25 years, R/o Village Bhadora, PS Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Kanshi Ram (died), deleted as per Court order dated 06.05.2025 Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Respondent For Appellants : Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 06/05/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.06.2008 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Session Trial No.102/2007, whereby the appellant No.1 Resham Lal has been convicted under Sections 323 & 325 of Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and RI for 3 years with default stipulations, whereas the appellant No.2 Kanshi Ram has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that co-accused Jawahar had purchased 42 decimal of land from the grandmother of PW-1 Branda Bai but apart from that land, he also claimed right on the other part of the land of the grandmother of PW-1, which was cultivated by Branda Bai. At the time of cutting of standing crops, the dispute arose when the accused persons stopped the complainant and her family members from cutting the crops and the accused persons used filthy language against the complainant and her brother Lakheshwar and assaulted them by hand, fist, club, etc. as a result of which they received severe injuries and were hospitalized, thereafter a case was registered against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellants before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material 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 injuries sustained by the injured were not serious 3 in nature and even the accused have also sustained injures, but the said aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, She submits that the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2008, during pendency of the appeal the appellant No.2 has died, whereas the appellant No.1 is currently aged about 45 years, the main allegation is against the appellant No.2 who has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC, the appellant No.1 has remained in jail for 38 days and has never misused the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, the appellant No.1 may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4. 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. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 147, 307 read with Section 149, Section 325 read with Section 149, Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and 4 documentary evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellants, as described in para 1 of the judgment. 7. During pendency of the appeal, the main accused/appellant No.2 Kanshi Ram has died. 8. PW-2 Patiram stated that on the date of incident, all the accused assaulted him by sickle and he sustained injuries in his hand and became unconscious and thereafter was taken to hospital. 9. The complainant PW-1 Branda Bai supported the statement of PW-2 Patiram. PW-3 Kartik Ram, PW-4 Kheekram, PW-5 Ayodhya Prasad, PW-6 Tularam, PW-10 Chhedi Lal and PW-11 Ram Lal saw the injured Patiram felling down unconscious. PW-7 Dr. R. Jeetpure examined Patiram on 21.11.2006 and found injuries on his head, chest and hand and gave his report (Ex-P/19). 10. Dr. S. P. Dehariya (PW-12) also examined Patiram and found injuries on his head, chest and gave his report (Ex-P/27). He also examined Lakheshwar and Branda Bai and gave report vide Ex- P/28, P/29 & P/30. The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the statement of all witnesses specially complainant and injured witnesses and also appreciated the statement of the medical officer and rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence, as such this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the conviction of the appellants. 11. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2006, during pendency of the appeal the appellant No.2 has 5 died, whereas the appellant No.1 is currently aged about 45 years, the main allegation is against the appellant No.2 who has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC, the appellant No.1 has remained in jail for 38 days and has never misused the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellant No.1 Resham Lal is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the appellant No.1 is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 12. The appeal is partly allowed. 13. The appellant No.1 is reported to be on bail. 14. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant No.1 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. 15. 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