1 2025:CGHC:59664 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 255 of 2025 Shashikant Baghel S/o Shri Ashok Baghel Aged About 35 Years R/o Bireshar Police Station Ghumka District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Presently R/o At Village Chunkatta Police Station Uttai District - Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Uttai District - Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA For Complainant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board 09/12/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused under Section 415(2) of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved with the 2 judgment dated 18.09.2024 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.162/2022, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence In Default under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for 07 years and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- In default of payment of fine amount further S.I. for 01 month under Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act R.I. for 01 year and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- In default of payment of fine amount further S.I. for 01 month under Section 27 of the Arms Act R.I. for 03 years and fine amount of Rs.1,000/- In default of payment of fine amount further S.I. for 01 month 3. Brief facts of this case is that on 03.05.2022, Head Constable Kaushal Sahu (PW8) posted at Police Station Utai received information from Selud Hospital, Selud that the injured Smt. Rekha Baghel has been admitted for treatment in a case of assault. Upon receiving the above information, the accompanying staff reached Selud Hospital and questioned the injured person, who told that on 02.05.2022 at around 10.00 pm, she had gone to defecate in the garden of her maternal home, at that time her husband Shashikant Baghel came secretly from behind and 3 suspecting her character, tried to murder her with a vegetable cutting tool near her left ear and on her right shoulder with the intention of killing her. 4. As told by the applicant/injured, a rural complaint (PW-1) was registered on the spot in connection with the incident under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, FIR No. 00/2022. Thereafter, on the basis of the rural complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) (PW-15) was registered against the accused at the Utai police station under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and taken up for investigation. 5. During the investigation, the injured Smt. Rekha Baghel was medically examined. A site map of the incident (Ex.P. 13) was prepared. After questioning the accused, a memorandum statement (Ex.P. 8) was recorded and as per his statement, a sharp vegetable cutting tool (knife) made of iron strip and the clothes worn at the time of the incident and a sari, petticoat, blouse, glass bangles and other items worn at the time of the incident were recovered from the injured. Blood stained sand and plain sand were seized from the spot and seizure proceedings were carried out. Statements of the applicants/injured and witnesses were recorded as per their statements. The accused was arrested in the presence of witnesses and arrest panchnama Ex.P. 12 was prepared. After necessary investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under 4 Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan, District-Durg, from where after production, this case was transferred from the Sessions Court to this Court for proper disposal. 6. On the basis of the case and documents, charges were framed against accused Shashikant Baghel under Section 307 of the IPC and Sections 25 (1-b) (b) and 27 of the Arms Act and when the same were read out and explained to him, the accused denied the charges and sought trial. 7. On the basis of the evidence filed by the prosecution in the case, a statement of charge was prepared under Section 351 of the BNSS, 2023. On examination of the accused, the accused denied the facts of the prosecution evidence, declared himself innocent and gave evidence in defence and the evidence of Ashok Baghel (DW-1) was taken. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that he does not wants to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that the complainant/victim is wife of the appellant has filed an application on 22.04.2025 that during the pendency of the trail, compromise has been taken place between the appellant and his wife and that there is no competent person to look after the family 5 members and as the appellant is husband of the complainant and looking to the future of the family members the complainant has no objection in granting bail to the appellant and even, she does not want to prosecute the case further. An affidavit is filed in support of the above. During pendency of the trial, complainant has not objected in granting regular bail to the appellant. He further submits that the incident is of the year 2022 and the appellant is facing lis since 2022. Appellant has undergone almost half of the sentence, therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellant, supported the impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 11. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the 6 view that the trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in recordings the findings as regards conviction of the appellant in the aforesaid Sections. 12. With regard to the sentence part, maximum sentence of the appellants is RI for 07 years. Considering the fact that the date of incident is 03.05.2022 more than 03 years has been lapsed. Further, it is also considered that the appellant has already undergone more than half of the sentence out of period of 07 years’ maximum sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon him, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. Ordered accordingly. 13. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 14. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant