1 2025:CGHC:55111 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 657 of 2008 1 - Yashwant @ Ishu Yadav, S/o Bhagirathi Yadav aged about 19 years, Occupation- Laborer R/o- Village-Sahu Bhawan, Near Pani Tanki, Sarona, Police Station-Upadhyay Nagar, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2 – Shiv Kumar Yadav, S/o Bhagirathi Yadav, aged about 27 years, Occupation-Driver/Conductor R/o- Near Pani Tanki, Sarona, Police Station-Upadhyay Nagar, District-Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate, District-Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 12.11.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 18.08.2005 passed by learned Additional/Upper Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.) Bemetara, District Durg passed in S.T. No. 46/2006, whereby the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced her as under:- Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Conviction Sentence U/S 307 of IPC Both the appellants are sentenced to R.I. for 8 years and fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of incident i.e., 18.05.2005 at about 9 pm, in village-Kandarka, the Police Station-Berla, District, Durg (C.G.), the marriage ceremony of two daughters of Punauram Yadav(PW-07) namely Bhuvneshwari and Rajani was going on and meanwhile, some dispute took place between the accused persons and the Tuluram & Punauram, then accused persons assaulted by way of stick & Babul stick to which both the persons Tuluram & Punauram sustained injuries in the head and other parts of the body. Further, Sarpanch Shankar Lal and Dauram brought both the injured persons in Dirghayu Hospital, Raipur (C.G.) for their treatment, Dirghayu Nursing Home informed regarding the said fateful incident to Azad Chowk’s police station, Raipur (C.G.) and Dehati Nalsi was filed by Punuram Yadav, based on which a crime was registered at Azad Chowk, Raipur. Since the crime fell under the jurisdiction of Berla Police Station, the case was registered under Crime No. 88/2005 at Berla Police Station-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC. 3. During the investigation, spot map of the incident was prepared, a shirt with blood stains and a babul stick were seized and they were sent for chemical examination and medical opinions were obtained. The injured 3 were also medically examined and the medical opinions were obtained and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. 4. After completion of due and necessary investigation, they were charge- sheeted before the Court of concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused persons. The appellants having abjured guilt were subjected to trial. 5. In order to establish the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the accused persons have been recorded, in which they denied the incriminating charges leveled against them and pleaded their innocence that they have been falsely implicated in this case. However, one witness has been examined by them in their defence. 6. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considered the material available on record, convicted the present appellants for offence under Section 307/34 of IPC by acquitting the co-accused person Jyoti Kumar Yadav of the aforesaid charge and sentenced the accused persons as mentioned in opening para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is against the facts, law and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has erred in holding that the appellants 4 have committed offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. The judgment of the learned trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on proper and in its right perspective. The learned trial Court has committed error of law in convicting the accused persons/appellants though there is no absolute evidence that the accused/appellants have committed the aforesaid offence. The evidence of complainant i.e., Punauram and Tuluram and his family members are not corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses. The learned trial Court has erred in appreciating the legal position prevailing in the case. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the important aspect in this case that neither the injured, nor the witnesses present on the spot have alleged that the accused/appellants have assaulted or caused injuries to anyone, The learned trial Court has not appreciated the fact that at the time of incident there was darkness and the injured persons are unaware regarding the assault from whom they have received. The learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate the evidence of other witnesses in its right perspective. The learned trial Court has committed gross error in appreciating the evidence of two doctors who were examined by the prosecution viz. Dr. Rakesh Dubey and Dr. Ajay Nagraj as they have not supported the prosecution case and injuries sustained to the injured person, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the other prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. The statements of the complainant and other witnesses of the prosecution are contradictory to each other losing their trustworthiness, hence prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 5 Learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly, so, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 of IPC, as imposed by the Trial Court is just and proper, the incident took place in the year 2005, this appeal is pending since 2008, the appellants are now aged about 36 years and 44 years respectively; and they have remained in jail for 01 year, 2 months and 18 days and they did not misuse the liberty while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 8. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 10. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shamsher Singh reported in 2025 AIR SC 2180, in the matter of Sivamani and Anr. vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police, Vellore Taluk Police Station, Vellore District reported in 2023 Online SCC 1581, in the matter of Hans Raj v. State of Haryana reported in CRA No. 1224 of 2011 vide judgment dated 19.11.2015, decision of this Court in the matter of Saheblal Suryavanshi and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported 6 in CRA No. 1508 of 2023. 11. Upon comprehensive evaluation of the record of learned trial Court, it is clear that it framed charges for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC against the appellants and other co- accused person and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused person Jyoti Kumar Yadav for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC, but convicted the appellants for offence under Section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced as described in para 1 of this judgment. 12. PW-03 Tuluram, has stated that on the date of incident, the co-accused Jyoti Kumar Yadav assaulted him with sword on head and the rest of the accused persons assaulted him with stick, as a result of which he became unconscious. 13. PW-02 Punauram, has stated that on the date of incident all accused persons assaulted his brother Tuluram and when he went inside the wedding pavilion ( Shaadi Mandap) he too got assaulted by the accused persons on head and he too became unconscious. He further stated that he lodged Dehati Nalsi vide Ex. P/01. 14. PW-01 Santosh Yadav has supported the statement of complainant and stated that all three accused persons were having dispute amongst themselves, his father intervened to stop the same and, as such, he got assaulted by sword and wooden stick. 15. PW-04 Chhabilal Gawre, PW-07 Punuram Yadav have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has declared them hostile, but they denied all suggestions of the prosecution. The other prosecution 7 witnesses PW-08 Daulal, PW-09 Posuram Yadav, PW-10 Pappuram Yadav are all hearsay witnesses. 16. PW-14 Dr. Rakesh Dubey, examined Tuluram and Punauram on 19.05.2005 and gave his report vide Exs. P/13, P/14, P/16 and he stated that Punauram was admitted in the hospital since 24.05.2005, his discharge certificate is Ex. P/16. The injuries of Tuluram were also serious in nature and gave his report vide Ex. P/17. 17. PW-15 Dr. Ajay Nagraj has stated that he conducted C.T. Scan of Tuluram and as per C.T. Scan, he found swelling in the brain and he advised him for operation as the swelling in the brain is dangerous to his life and thereby he gave his report vide Ex. P/18. 18. It is clear from the statement of the complainant that all accused persons/appellants have assaulted Tuluram and Punauram by sword and club and both the doctors have found grievous injuries. 19. Learned trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellants under Section 307 of IPC, as such the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 of IPC stands affirmed. 20. As regards quantum of sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2005, this appeal is pending since 2008, the appellants were on bail during trial and even during pendency of this appeal nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that they never misused the liberty granted to them; appellants are now aged about 36 and 44 respectively; and have remained in jail for 1 year, 02 months and 18 days. In these circumstances, this Court is of the 8 opinion that no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be met if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them for offence under Section 307 of IPC. 21. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed and the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 22. The appellants are reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 the appellants are also directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 23. 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/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE U.K. Raju