1 CRA No. 887 of 2016 2025:CGHC:52507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 887 of 2016 1 - Tejram Yadav @ Rukhu S/o Sitaram Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Hansdand, P.S. Lakhanpur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ravishankar Yadav S/o Tajram Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Hansdand, P.S. Lakhanpur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh 3 - Jagnarayan S/o Rambharos Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Hansdand, P.S. Lakhanpur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh. , District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through D.M. Surguja Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. AG and Mr. Shailendra Sharma, PL Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 28/10/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.10.30 16:48:00 +0530 2 CRA No. 887 of 2016 22/06/2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 18/2010 by the learned Special Judge, Surguja (C.G.) whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs. 1500/-, with default stipulation. U/s 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/-, with default stipulation. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 11.10.2009, the complainant Bhulan had gone to his agricultural field along with labourers namely Hirasai, Harisai and Ramesh for harvesting the paddy crop. At around 11:30 a.m., the accused persons, Tejram, Ravikumar and Jagannarayan, arrived at the spot armed with sticks and started abusing the complainant Bhulan in filthy and caste-related language. During the incident, accused Tejram struck Manoj, the son of the complainant, on his right knee with a stick, while accused Jagannarayan assaulted him near his shoulder, causing injuries. Thereafter, accused Tejram and Ravikumar went towards the complainant Bhulan, continued to abuse him, and threatened to kill him. Accused Tejram, with an intention to cause his death, assaulted Bhulan on his head with a stick, while Ravikumar struck him 3 CRA No. 887 of 2016 near the knee, due to which he fell down and became unconscious. Subsequently, on 12.10.2009, an FIR (Ex.P-3) was lodged at Police Station Lakhanpur. During investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded, the spot map (Ex.P-8) was prepared, and the complainant’s caste certificate was seized under seizure memo (Ex.P-2). The accused persons were arrested, and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent court. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 294/34 and 506 Part-II/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, asserting their innocence and alleging false implication. In defence, accused Tejram also recorded his own statement. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, namely Bhulan (PW-1), Sulista (PW-2), Manoj (PW-3), Smt. Sukeshwari Urav (PW-4), Dr. Prem Singh Marko (PW-5), Nilima Tirkhi (PW-6), Ravindra Kumar Mishra (PW-7), V.P. Sharma (PW-8), Jageshwar Ram (PW-9), and Hirasai (PW-10), and produced several documentary and material exhibits such as the FIR (Ex.P-1), seizure memos, medical examination reports of the injured persons and accused, site map (Ex.P- 8), memorandum statements, seizure of bamboo sticks, arrest memos, and query reports. Certain documents exhibited under the same number were later renumbered to remove discrepancies in the record. 4 CRA No. 887 of 2016 3. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case and that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. He further submits that even the essential ingredients of Sections 323/34 and 324/34 of the IPC have not been proved against the appellants. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is not sustainable. In the alternative, he submits that the appellants have no criminal antecedents and have remained on bail without misuse of liberty granted by this Court. Hence, they may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. 5. Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, learned Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submit that the conviction of the appellants is well founded and does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove, and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. To substantiate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the 5 CRA No. 887 of 2016 appellants, it is necessary to carefully examine the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 8. The complainant, Bhulan (PW-1), belonging to the Uraon tribal community, stated that while he, his family members, and labourers were harvesting paddy in his field around noon in 2009, the accused persons, belonging to the Yadav community, arrived armed with sticks, claimed the land to be ancestral to them, hurled caste-based abuses, and assaulted his son Manoj and himself, causing bleeding injuries. He was initially treated at Lakhanpur and later referred to Ambikapur Hospital. 9. PW-2 Sunita, a labourer present at the spot, corroborated the incident, stating that the accused persons abused and assaulted Manoj and Bhulan with sticks, resulting in injuries and unconsciousness to Bhulan. She affirmed that caste-related abuses were uttered and denied the defence suggestion that the Uraons had attempted to cut paddy from the accused’s land or that the complainant’s party was the aggressor. 10. PW-3 Manoj, son of the complainant, supported his father’s version, deposing that the accused persons came armed with sticks, abused them in caste-based language, assaulted him on the knee and shoulder, and thereafter beat his father on the head and back, rendering him unconscious. He denied that his family had initiated the assault. 11. PW-4 Smt. Sukeshwari Uraon, another labourer, also corroborated the complainant’s account, stating that the accused persons arrived armed with sticks, first beat Manoj and then Bhulan, causing bleeding injuries, 6 CRA No. 887 of 2016 while hurling caste-based and obscene abuses and threatening to kill the Uraons. She too denied the defence suggestion that the complainant’s side had attacked first or that the land belonged to the accused. 12. Perusal of the evidence of PW-1 Bhulan, PW-2 Sunita, PW-3 Manoj, and PW-4 Smt. Sukeshwari Uraon clearly reveals that the accused persons, belonging to the Yadav community, arrived at the complainant’s field armed with sticks while the complainant, his family members, and labourers were harvesting paddy. The accused persons questioned their presence on the land, abused them in filthy and caste-related language, and thereafter assaulted Manoj and Bhulan, causing injuries to both. The consistent and corroborative depositions of these witnesses establish that the assault was accompanied by caste-based abuses and threats, and that Bhulan sustained bleeding injuries requiring hospitalization. The defence version that the complainant’s party had trespassed upon the accused’s land or that they were the aggressors finds no support from the evidence on record and stands effectively discredited. 13. Now, the question that arises for consideration is whether the injuries sustained by the injured were grievous in nature, for which, the statement of the medical witness would be crucial. 14. PW-5, Dr. Premsingh Mako, Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Udaipur, District Sarguja, deposed that he was posted at CHC Lakhanpur from July 2001 to November 2011. On 11.10.2009, he examined injured Manoj, aged 28 years, and found an imprint abrasion on the left shoulder (5×3 cm), another on the left calf (4×3 cm), and multiple superficial 7 CRA No. 887 of 2016 scratches on both hands. He opined that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object within six hours of the examination; the shoulder injury was advised for x-ray, which showed no fracture, and other injuries were simple. On the same day, he examined injured Bhulan, aged 40 years, who was vomiting, and found a lacerated wound on the right parietal region (1×0.5×0.3 cm) and abrasions on the left hand and knee. He opined that these were also caused by a hard and blunt object within two hours prior to examination. X-ray revealed no fracture. He further stated that the imprint abrasions on Manoj could not have been caused by a fall but were consistent with being struck by a stick or lathi. He also examined accused Jagnarayan, Ravishankar, and Tejram, finding minor abrasions and swelling injuries, mostly simple in nature. He proved the medical reports Exhibits P-4 to P-7 and D-5 to D-8 and affirmed the correctness of his deposition. 15. On perusal of the medical evidence of PW-5 Dr. Premsingh Mako, it is evident that the injuries sustained by both the injured persons, namely Manoj and Bhulan, were simple in nature, caused by a hard and blunt object such as a stick or lathi. The doctor categorically stated that no fracture or grievous injury was found on either of them, and both were discharged after primary treatment. Thus, the medical findings corroborate the ocular evidence regarding the assault but rule out the existence of any grievous or life-threatening injury, thereby excluding the applicability of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Having considered the medical and ocular evidence on record, it is clear 8 CRA No. 887 of 2016 that the prosecution has successfully proved the commission of the offence under Sections 324 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. However, the nature of the incident indicates that it arose suddenly out of a land-related dispute without any premeditation or intention to cause death. 17. So far as the sentence part is concerned, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 2009, and that the appellants have no previous criminal antecedents and have already remained in custody for about five days, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellants have remained on bail and have not misused the liberty granted to them. The injuries sustained by the complainant and his son have been found to be simple, and the incident appears to have been the result of a sudden altercation arising out of a land dispute. 18. Keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478, wherein leniency was extended considering the long passage of time and payment of fine to the victim, this Court finds it appropriate to take a similar view. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Sections 324 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the period already undergone. 9 CRA No. 887 of 2016 However, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to ₹5,000/- under Section 324 of the IPC and ₹5,000/- under Section 323/34 of the IPC against each of the appellants, making a total fine of ₹10,000/- per appellant. Accordingly, the total fine amount for all three appellants shall come to ₹30,000/- (₹10,000 x 3 = ₹30,000/-), adjusting any amount already deposited before the trial Court. The said fine shall be deposited by the appellants before the trial Court within a period of one month failing which they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Out of the total fine amount of ₹ 30,000/-, an amount of ₹ 15,000/- shall be paid to the complainant/injured Bhulan and ₹ 15,000/- to injured Manoj as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 19. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the appeal stands partly allowed. 20. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 21. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri