1 2025:CGHC:53875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 816 of 2025 1 - Jagmohan Sahu @ Jaggu S/o Ram Prasad Sahu Aged About 20 Years Resident Of Bhathagaon, Chhirrapara Yadav Para, P.S. Purani Basti, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Jitendra Sahu @ Jarha S/o Ramadhar Sahu Aged About 22 Years Resident Of Bhathagaon, Ganesh Chowk, Chhirrapara, P.S. Purani Basti, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1509 of 2025 1 - Punam Sahu @ Lala S/o Ramadhar Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Bhathagaon Ganesh Chowk, Chhirrapara, P.S. Purani Basti, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Appellant No. 3) 2 2 - Vishnu Yadav @ Jetli S/o Late Aghnu Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Changora- Bhatha, Near Shitla Mandir Police Station D.D. Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Appellant No. 4 ) ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Purani Basti Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Appellants(s) : Shri Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms.Sunita Manikpuri, Dy.GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 04/11/2025 As both these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Special Court for trial of CBI cases, Raipur in S.T. No. 165/2024, whereby convicting the accused/appellants in Cr.A. No. 816 of 2025 under Sections 307 IPC, Sections 25(1-b) and 27(1) of the Arms Act (appellant No.1) and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 307 IPC; RI for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 25(1-b) (b) and RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 27(1) of the Arms Act, with default stipulations and appellant No.2 has been convicted under Section 307/34 IPC with default stipulation. In Cr.A. No. 1509 of 2025 the appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 IPC and 3 sentenced each of them to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- plus default stipulation, they are being adjudicated and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.05.2024 at about 6.30 am. adjacent to Sabun Talab, Danteshwari temple, Purani Basti, Raipur, it is alleged that accused persons namely Jaggu, Lala, Jaitley and Jarha, who were present at the spot, began hurling abuses and extended threats to murder him. Thereafter, accused Jaggu is said to have rushed towards injured Prince Singh and assaulted with a knife below his ear as a result of which he fell from the bike and then proceeded to inflict further injuries with hands and legs. Injured took shelter in a nearby house. On receiving information regarding the incident, brother of the victim Arjun Singh (PW-3) along with his maternal uncle immediately reached hospital where he has been shifted by the police and the incident was reported at police station Purani Basti, Raipur on the basis of which FIR was lodged which was registered as Crime No. 197/2024 for the offence under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 323 and 34 IPC. Medical examination of the injured was conducted and pursuant to the opinion of the doctor regarding the seriousness of the injuries, Section 307 IPC was subsequently invoked. 3. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared; blood stained articles and other incriminating materials were seized from the place of occurrence. Memorandum statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence 4 Act and pursuant to which a button knife, used in the offence, was recovered. Since the said weapon was in breach of the prevailing notification/order Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were added. During investigation, the prosecution meticulously prepared the spot maps Ex.P- 3 & 14, clearly delineating the scene of occurrence and salient features of the place. Injured was medically examined by the doctor and the medical report was duly marked as Ex.P-7. The memorandum of accused/appellants were recorded and marked as Ex.P-16, 17 and 18. The weapon of offence -knife and clothing ie. black colour handkerchief, cap and shoes were seized vide Ex.P-19. Additionally the clothes worn by the injured at the time of incident were seized and marked as Ex.P-1.The clothings of the injured as well as the appellants as well as the weapon of offence-knife were seized and sent to forensic analysis and chemical examination reports were received from the FSL. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was proceeded for trial. 4. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506 Part- II, 307 of IPC and Sections 25(1-b)(b) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, to which the accused abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by him in defence. 5 5. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and upon careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence these appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material contradiction and omission in the statements of the witnesses. He submits that the prosecution case is based on uncorroborated and contradictory eyewitness accounts. There was prior enmity between the parties which blossomed into a singular altercation without any homicidal intent. The medical evidence, including postmortem report (Ex.P-7) confirmed only simple injuries, non-fatal in nature, inflicted in a momentary brawl. The prosecution case is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts; crucial witnesses are interested and relatives of complainant. The appellants were falsely implicated driven by animosity and the prosecution failed to prove intention to cause death under Section 307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the necessary ingredients for attracting the offence under Section 307 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act are extremely missing in this case. He further submits that all the important witnesses in this case are interested witnesses and as such, their reliability is doubtful but the learned trial Court did not consider this aspect. The prosecution has failed to prove its case on the basis of evidence adduced by it beyond 6 reasonable doubt, therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges by giving him benefit of doubt. 7. He contended that the appellants have been falsely implicated due to enmity and the sentence of five years is excessive looking to the nature of offence. It is therefore prayed that the conviction be set aside or in the alternative sentence be reduced substantially. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the incident which took place in the year 2021, he has no criminal antecedents, he is in jail for the last 2 years and 9 months, he was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty, his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. On the contrary, learned State counsel strongly supports the judgment impugned and submits that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt by oral and documentary evidence. The presence of appellants at the scene, recovery of weapon and nature of injuries demonstrate use of deadly weapon with intention to cause grievous hurt or death. He submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Hence, conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants are just and proper and the appeals be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, their pleadings and submissions, the evidence placed on record. 7 10. Rajni Singh (PW-1) is the mother of injured Prince Singh. She has stated that on the date of incident, when her son was going to Gym, Telibandha, accused/appellants surrounded him and was assaulted with knife. He son was oozing in blood and she was informed by the police about the incident. Thereafter her younger son Arjun Singh got him admitted to Vaidehi Hospital where he remained in ICU for three days and after gaining consciousness, he narrated the incident to her. 11. Injured Prince Singh (PW-2) has stated that on earlier occasion also, appellant Jaggu Singh had attacked his brother Anand Singh with knife and committed maar-peeth and the other three accused/appellants frequently commit maar peeth in their colony. He has stated that on the date of incident, when he was on his way towards Danteshwari Temple, 7-8 accused/appellants surrounded him and appellant Jaggu took out a knife and attacked him as a result of which he fell down in the drain/sewer and when he tried to get up, he was again attacked on his abdomen, right hand and on the back side of his arm, right side of his thigh. He however, escaped and went inside the house of some unknown person and then he fell unconscious. The police reached and he was shifted to Vaidehi Hospital where he was admitted for 4-5 days. 12. Arjun Singh (PW-3) brother of injured Prince Singh has stated that on the date of incident, at about 7.15 am. police vehicle came to his house and they were asked about his brother and it was informed 8 that his brother has been stabbed with knife by some unknown person and he has been shifted to Vaidehi hospital, Thereafter, he lodged the report Ex.P-2 at police station Purani Basti. After identifying the accused/appellants in the mobile by his brother Prince, information was given to the police and the blood stained shoes and clothing was seized and Spot Map Ex.P-3 was prepared. 13. Dr. Deepesh Shah (PW-5) has medically examined the injured Prince Singh vide Ex.P-7 and has has opined that the injuries were grievous in nature and that it was dangerous to his life. He sustained following injuries: (i) right sideneck in the size of 5x2x1cm (ii) right forearm 5x2x1cm. Elbow (iii) right hand dorsum 5x2x1cm. (iv) right side leg below knee 5x3x2cm. (v) right thigh 3x3x2 cm. Upper cateral (vi) left thigh 5x2x2cm cateral side (vii) right hand palm deep wound 5x2x1cm 14. Thus, looking to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, following facts emerge: • Injured Prince Singh (PW-2) and complainant Arjun Singh (PW-3) gave consistent testimony that the appellants inflicted injuries by blows and knife attack. • The medical evidence confirms presence of incised wounds consistent with sharp weapon supporting assault with deadly weapon. 9 • However, the severity of injury is minor and no life threatening harm was reported by the doctor (PW-5) suggesting absence of intent to cause death. • Contradictions and omissions in prosecution witnesses statements on crucial facts such as sequence of events and roles of accused are discernible and weigh against prosecution case. • The trial court overlooked the material discrepancies and gave excessive weight to statements of interested witnesses. • Established principles of criminal jurisprudence require intention to cause death or knowledge that act is likely to cause death for Section 307 IPC to apply. Mere use of weapon and caused simple injury do not suffice to that effect. • Applying the principle of benefit of doubt in favor of the accused considering their young age, social antecedents and probability of sudden fight without premeditation. 15. Now, the question is, whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellants for ofences under Section 307 of the IPC? At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 307 of the IPC which states as under: - “307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life-convicts.—When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be 10 punished with death.” The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an ofence under Section 307 of the IPC are: (i) that the death of a human being was attempted; (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as: (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excused for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. 16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and others reported in (1988) 4 SCC 551, has held that under Section 307 of the IPC what the court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the provision. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of “attempt to murder”. Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. It 11 has been further held that 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 is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. 17. Similarly, in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao and others, reported in (2003) 10 SCC 434, the Apex Court has held that for the application of Section 307 of the IPC, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained, the manner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 of the IPC. It has been observed in 1 (1988) 4 SCC 5512 ( 2003) 10 SCC 434 by their Lordships in para 21 of the report as under : - “21. In offence under Section 307 all the ingredients of the offence of murder are present except the death of the victim. For the application of Section 307, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained, the manner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 IPC. But since sentence and fine have been maintained, alteration of conviction notwithstanding no modification of sentence need be made. 18. The Supreme Court in the matter of Parsuram Pandey and others v. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 13 SCC 189 has also held that to constitute an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, two ingredients of the ofence must be present: (a) an intention of or 12 knowledge relating to commission of murder; and (b) the doing of an act towards it. It has been held in paragraph 15 of the report as under:- 15. To constitute an ofence under Section 307 two ingredients of the ofence must be present: (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and (b) the doing of an act towards it. For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or the knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. The section clearly contemplates an act which is done with intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. In the absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of Section 307, there can be no ofence “of attempt to murder”. Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence, as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other factors. " 18. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jage Ram and others v. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 11 SCC 366 has laid down the ingredients of the ofence under Section 307 of the IPC and held as under:- “To constitute an ofence under Section 307 two ingredients of the ofence must be present: (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commission of murder; and (b) the doing of an act towards it. For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or the knowledge and not the 13 consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. The section clearly contemplates an act which is done with intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. In the absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of Section 307, there can be no ofence “of attempt to murder”. Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence, as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other factors.” 19. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jage Ram and others v. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 11 SCC 366 has laid down the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and held as under:- “12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder; and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time 14 of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given, etc. 14. Having regard to the weapon used for causing the head injuries to Sukhbir, nature of injures, situs of the injury and the severity of the blows, the courts below recorded concurrent findings convicting the second appellant under Section 307 IPC. In our considered view, the conviction of the second appellant Rajbir @ Raju under Section 307 IPC is unassailable.” 20. Thus taking a cumulative note of the medical evidence collected by the prosecution and taking into consideration the aforesaid judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the findings recorded by the trial Court convicting the accused/appellants under Section 307 IPC are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and deserve to be and are hereby maintained. However, considering the nature of injuries, facts of the case and the period already undergone by the appellants in custody and there is no previous antecedents of the appellants and they are aged between 22 to 23 years old at the time of incident, having family responsibilities, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence imposed upon them is modified and reduced from five years to that under three years rigorous imprisonment. 21. 21. In exercise of appellate jurisdiction and in the interest of justice, the sentence of RI for five years under Section 307 IPC to the 15 appellants is reduced to that of three years. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant No.1 in Cr.A. No. 816 of 2025 under Section 25(1-b)(b) and 27(1) of the Arms Act shall remain unaltered. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 22-. The appellants shall be entitled to set off the period of actual custody undergone during investigation, trial and appeal as per section 429 of the BNS Act, 2023. The appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.01.13 11:11:43 +0530