1 2025:CGHC:61593 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 174 of 2024 Hiresh Mandle S/o Anandram Mandle Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Risda, P.S. City Kotwali Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. City Kotwali, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Mr. Priya Sharma, PL. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on board 15.12.2025. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, Distt -Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh, in ST.No.98/2021, whereby appellant stands convicted and sentence as under: 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 326 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years & fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 month additional SI. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on 19.05.2021 at about 7:30 a.m., the complainant-Rakesh Mandale alongwith Jitendra Khute, Santosh Sahu and Chandrahans Ghritlahare (Sarpanch and Panch), went to show/inspect his disputed agricultural field/farm situated at Dasharma Khar. After showing/inspecting the disputed field, the Sarpanch and Panch witnesses returned to the village. Complainant’s motorcycle having developed a puncture, he left the same at Joshi’s puncture shop for repair and was proceeding on foot towards his house. At that time, when he was passing in front of the house of the accused-appellant/Hiresh, the accused on seeing the complainant, abused him in filthy language, uttering insults relating to his mother and sister, and threatened to kill him over a dispute concerning the boundary ridge of the field. With the intention to commit murder, he assaulted the complainant by striking him on the head with a tangiya (Axe) which he was holding in his hand, thereby causing a head injury to the complainant. On the basis of the report lodged by the 3 complainant, FIR was registered against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet/challan was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him. 4. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 08 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to the conviction part of the impugned judgment and confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. He submits that alleged incident had taken place on 19.05.2021, there was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, it was the first offence of appellant, at the time of incident appellant was aged about only 21 years, he is in jail since 17.07.2025 and he has already served more than 06 months of jail sentence. Hence, it 4 is prayed that sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that looking to the injury suffered by victim/complainant, leniency should not be shown to appellant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 9. PW-1/complainant Rakesh Mandle in his evidence has stated that he identify the accused Hiresh Mandale, who is present before the Court; there was a dispute relating to land between accused and his family. On 19.05.2021, when he (complainant) reached in front of house of the accused, the accused was standing there and on seeing him, he started abusing him in filthy languages by uttering insults relating to mother and sister and, thereafter, he assaulted him on his head by means of tangiya (Axe). When the accused attempted to assault him second time by the tangiya, his brother Yuvraj Mandale and his wife Lata Mandale intervened and rescued him. Due to assault by Axe, he (complainant) suffered injury on his head, he was taken to the hospital where he remain admitted for treatment from 19.05.2021 to 20.05.2021 and stitches were applied to the injury on his head. 10. PW-6/Dr. Pallavi Yadav in her evidence has stated that on the 5 date of alleged incident, she examined the injured complainant and found that injury suffered by the complainant-Rakesh Mandale was grievous in nature and was possible to be caused by a sharp-edged and pointed weapon. 11. Though learned counsel for appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 12. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. 13. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the fact that incident took place on 19.05.2021, there was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, it was the first offence of appellant, at the time of incident appellant was aged about only 21 years, he has already served more than 06 months of jail sentence, this Court is of the opinion that 6 sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant (RI for 03 years) appears to be on higher side. So keeping in view all the circumstances, mentioned above, ends of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon appellant is reduced from RI 03 years to RI 01 year. 14. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellant under Section 326 of IPC, the sentence imposed upon him by trial Court under Section 326 of IPC is reduced from RI for 03 years to RI 01 year. However, sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court is hereby maintained. 15. Record of case be sent back forthwith with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-