1 2025:CGHC:58427 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 810 of 2005 Mahendra Suryavanshi, S/o Dhanu Ram, aged about 39 years, Thana- Chakarbhata Dist – Bilaspur, (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Chakarbhata, Dist – Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.12.2025 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) arising out of the judgment dated 07.10.2005 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 157/2004, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 458 of the Indian Penal Code RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. Under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. Under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months. (All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently) ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.12.06 12:26:42 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of 10- 11/02/2005, at about 10:00 PM, Ramvaran, (PW-1), was sleeping in his house situated at village Bodri. His son Purushottam, (PW-6), had gone outside to attend to nature’s call. At that time, the accused reached there with a sharp-edged weapon/knife with the intention of killing Ramvaran and inflicted a deep incised injury on his neck, causing grievous hurt. When Purushottam returned from the field, he found his father lying on the ground in a blood-soaked condition. He immediately called their neighbours, Hari Ram (PW-7), Ramphal (PW-2), his grandmother Fekanbai (PW-5), and others. Thereafter, Fekanbai, along with Purushottam, went to Police Station Chakrabhatha and lodged the report (Ex. P-8), thereafter, the offence under Sections 450, 458 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code were registered against the appellant/accused. 3. During the investigation, the police recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared the spot map, and got the medical examination of injured Ramvaran conducted by Dr. A.S. Khan (PW-4). The doctor found one incised wound measuring 6½ inch X 2½ inch X 3 inches on the front side of the neck and also noted that the windpipe and food pipe were cut. He issued the medical report (Ex. P-5). 4. In order to bring home the above-stated offence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statements of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied his guilt and has taken the stand that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Naresh Sengar (DW-1) and Vaitibai (DW-2) have testified on his behalf. 5. The learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide impugned judgment dated 07.10.2005 convicted and sentenced the appellant as 3 mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been filed by the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits at the outset that the appellant is not pressing the present appeal insofar as it challenges the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and confines his submissions only to the aspect of quantum of sentence. It is urged that the incident in question occurred on 11.02.2005 without any pre-meditation and took place in the heat of the moment. The appellant had no prior criminal involvement, and even after the incident, he has not indulged in any further criminal activity, indicating that the occurrence was an isolated act. 7. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has awarded the appellant rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Sections 458 and 450 of the IPC, and 07 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 of the IPC. Counsel contends that the appellant has already undergone custody of about one year, and was thereafter granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 17.01.2006. Considering that nearly two decades have passed since the incident and that the appellant is presently aged about 54 years, it is argued that the period already undergone by him would serve the ends of justice. 8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, including the long lapse of time, absence of criminal antecedents, and the appellant’s present age, learned counsel prays that the substantive sentence imposed by the trial Court may be suitably reduced and confined to the period already undergone by the appellant. 4 9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and contends that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant. It is submitted that the findings recorded by the trial Court are well-reasoned and based on cogent evidence, and therefore do not warrant any interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction. Learned State Counsel, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 11. Though learned counsel for appellant has not challenged conviction of appellant and confined their prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the trial Court. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 12. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the learned trial Court, after a detailed and meticulous appreciation of the evidence of all material witnesses, has recorded a clear finding that the prosecution has successfully established the sequence of events leading to the assault on injured Ramvaran. The trial Court has rightly relied upon the consistent testimonies of the injured witness and other supporting witnesses, duly corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. A.S. Khan (PW-4), who noted a deep incised wound on the neck with injury to vital structures. Having regard to the nature, location, and gravity of the injury, the trial Court has correctly concluded that the appellant assaulted the victim with the requisite intention and knowledge, thereby attracting the ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC. This Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the 5 said findings. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 458, 450 and 307 of the IPC, is afÏrmed. 13. So far as the sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is concerned, this Court has considered the overall circumstances of the case. The incident in question occurred in the year 2005, without any premeditation, and appears to have taken place in a sudden impulse. It is also not disputed that the appellant has no prior criminal antecedents and has not been involved in any criminal activity thereafter. Learned counsel for the appellant has confined his submissions only to the quantum of sentence and as such, taking into consideration the period of detention already undergone by the appellant, which is approximately one year, coupled with the fact that nearly two decades have elapsed since the occurrence and the appellant is now aged about 54 years, this Court is of the opinion that a reduction of sentence would meet the ends of justice. 14. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC as well as under Sections 450 and 458 of the IPC, the substantive sentence of 07 years rigorous imprisonment imposed under Section 307 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 05 years. The sentences imposed under Sections 450 and 458 IPC shall remain unaltered, and all sentences shall continue to run concurrently as directed by the trial Court. 15. Consequently, the criminal appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC, as well as under Sections 450 and 458 of the IPC, is hereby afÏrmed. However, the substantive sentence imposed under Section 307 IPC is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for 07 years to rigorous imprisonment for 05 years. The 6 sentences awarded under Sections 450 and 458 IPC shall remain undisturbed, and the fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall also remain intact. 16. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is on bail. His bail bond stand cancelled and sureties discharged. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court within a period of 01 month from today for serving remaining part of his sentence as modified by this Court, failing which, he shall be taken into custody to serve out his sentence as modified by this Court. 17. The Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. 18. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail term, to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek