1 2025:CGHC:56419 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1415 of 2024 1 - Anand @ Rajaram S/o. Kuman Singh Marko Aged About 22 Years R/o. Village - Amjhar, Police Station - Pasan, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., Pasan, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 19/11/2025 This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba wherein the appellant was convicted under Sections 450 and 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 500/-u/s. 450 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/s. 307 IPC with default 2 stipulations. 2. As per prosecution, the incident occurred in the midnight of 17/18.06.2022 at about 1:00 a.m., when the appellant along with a juvenile co-accused allegedly trespassed into the house of injured victim Kadam Kunwar. It is alleged that the appellant assaulted her with a sharp cutting weapon (gandasa) causing grievous injuries, mainly on the neck region. On hearing the cries of the injured, her son Sukul Singh, who was sleeping in another portion of the house, woke up and rushed to the spot with a torch. In the torchlight, he allegedly saw the appellant cutting his mother’s neck while another person was holding her legs. On being noticed, the assailants fled. The injured victim was immediately shifted to hospital and thereafter referred to a higher medical centre. FIR was lodged, investigation commenced, weapon and other materials were seized, statements of witnesses were recorded, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 450 and 307 IPC. 3. The trial court on perusal of prosecution evidence including statements, FIR, medical reports and FSL report found the appellant guilty and convicted accordingly. 4. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, two witnesses were examined by him in 3 defence. 5. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and upon careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the learned trial court has gravely erred in convicting the appellant without a proper, fair and critical appreciation of the evidence on record. The trial court has mechanically accepted the version of the prosecution without delving into inherent contradictions and inconsistencies that completely undermine the reliability of their case. It is next submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are contradictory which have a direct bearing on the identification, timing and role of the appellant in the alleged incident. The trial court failed to appropriately weigh such material contradictions, which ought to have raised serious doubts. He submits that the incident took place at night in the victim’s dimly lit house and the alleged assailants were initially unknown to the witnesses. Under settled legal principles, TIP is imperative in such situations to root out mistaken identity. The failure to conduct TIP before recording evidence critically impairs the credibility of the identification made during trial. The conviction is relied solely on this identification without TIP which is illegal and unsustainable. The witnesses allegedly harbour previous animosity or enmity against the appellant, leading to a probable false implication. He further submits that the original complainant, who lodged the FIR and was a key eyewitness 4 died during trial and his non-examination seriously prejudiced the appellant's right to a fair trial a crucial testimony is missing. The FSL report Ex.P-29 is decisive since it found no traces of human blood on the gandasa alleged to be the weapon used or on the appellant’s clothing. This scientific evidence directly contradicts the prosecution story of grievous injury caused by the appellant using that weapon, creating reasonable doubt about his involvement in the offence. 7. It is submitted that prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant possessed such mens rea that there was specific intention or knowledge to cause death. The injuries sustained by the victim were grave, are not conclusive proof of an intention to cause death. In absence of intention offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and consequently, the offence under Section 450 IPC also stands on weak footing. The entire judgment by the learned Sessions Court is grounded on presumptions rather than concrete, direct evidence. Reliance on surmises in a criminal trial violates the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Such faulty approach vitiates the conviction. He submits that even if the court finds conviction proper, the sentence of 10 years RI granted for the offence under Section 307 IPC is disproportionate to the circumstances of the case and since the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the appellant which mandates acquittal or at least reduction of sentence. 8. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, learned State counsel has argued that the prosecution has proved the case 5 beyond reasonable doubt by cogent evidence including the statement of the witnesses, medical evidence of grievous injury, appellant’s confession and corroborative fact of recovery of weapon and blood stains. Minor contradictions do not shake the case of the prosecution . 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The instant appeal necessitates a careful appraisal of the evidence. 10. From the evidence brought on record, it stands established that the incident occurred in the house of injured Kadam Kunwar in the midnight at about 1:00 a.m. of 17/18.06.2022. The FIR (Ex.P-14) was lodged promptly after the incident. The contents of the FIR show that upon hearing cries, Sukul Singh rushed with a torch and saw the appellant assaulting his mother while another person caught her legs, and on being noticed both assailants fled. The FIR version remains substantially consistent with later testimonies of witnesses and no material contradiction affecting the substratum of prosecution case has been demonstrated. The spot map and Nazri Naksha (Ex.P-15) prepared during investigation clearly show that the occurrence took place within the residential premises of the injured. Evidence of Patwari Ajay Kumar Mishra (PW-8) also confirms preparation of the map and location of occurrence. Nothing material was elicited in cross- examination to dispute the place of occurrence. 11. Thus, the place and manner of occurrence stand firmly proved. The evidence further shows that immediately after hearing cries, family 6 members and villagers assembled at the house and found the injured with a severe cut injury on the neck and bleeding profusely. Witness Hari Singh (PW-2) has deposed that upon receiving information, he reached the spot and saw the injured Kadam Kunwar with a bleeding cut injury on her neck. He has also stated that several villagers gathered at the spot. His testimony confirms the immediate aftermath of the occurrence. Similarly, other witnesses including Rasiya @ Ray Singh (PW-1), Kunwariya Bai (PW-3), Shishkali (PW-4) and Bhaiya Lal (PW-5) consistently stated that they reached the place soon after hearing cries and saw the injured in a grievously injured condition and she was thereafter taken to hospital. These witnesses consistently support the prosecution version regarding occurrence of a violent assault inside the house of the injured during night hours. Minor inconsistencies regarding sequence of arrival or exact details are natural variations and do not affect the credibility of the core prosecution case. 12. The Investigating Officer (PW-11) has deposed that the injured was taken for medical examination and her statement was recorded. The evidence also shows that the statement of the injured was recorded soon after the occurrence. The injured attributed the assault to the appellant and stated that he inflicted injury on her neck by means of a sharp weapon. Nothing material has been shown in cross-examination to discard this part of the prosecution evidence. 13. The medical evidence forms a crucial link in the prosecution case. Dr. Simant Ray (PW-9), who medically examined the injured, has categorically stated that upon examination he found a deep incised 7 wound measuring approximately 15 × 3 cm on the posterior side of the neck, showing deep tissue involvement and active bleeding. He opined that * Injury was caused by a hard and sharp cutting weapon. * Injury was grievous in nature. * Injury was located on a vital part of the body. * Immediate treatment was necessary as the injury was dangerous to life. * Delay in treatment could have resulted in death. 14. The statement of the doctor remained unshaken in cross- examination. No contradiction or inconsistency was shown which could discredit his testimony. Thus, the medical evidence, fully corroborates the prosecution case that the injured sustained a grievous, life- threatening incised wound caused by a sharp weapon. 15. The prosecution has emphasized certain discrepancies regarding exact witnessing of assault or sequence of events. However, law is well settled that minor contradictions, embellishments or omissions which do not affect the substratum of prosecution case are inconsequential. The core facts remain unshaken: * Incident occurred at night inside victim’s house. * Victim sustained severe incised wound on neck. * Assault was caused by sharp weapon. * Injury was dangerous to life. 16. Thus, minor discrepancies do not erode the credibility of prosecution evidence. The evidence clearly establishes that the 8 assailants entered the residential house of the injured during midnight hours and caused grievous hurt. Entry into dwelling house during night with preparation to cause hurt squarely attracts Section 450 IPC. The prosecution evidence sufficiently proves this ingredient. 17. Section 307 IPC requires intention or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. In the present case: * Injury was inflicted with a sharp weapon. * Blow was directed on the neck, a vital part of body. * Injury was deep and life-threatening. * Victim survived only due to immediate medical treatment. 18. Such conduct clearly demonstrates knowledge that the act was likely to cause death. Survival of victim due to medical intervention does not dilute culpability. Hence, offence under Section 307 IPC stands established. The learned trial Court has carefully examined oral and documentary evidence and reached a reasoned conclusion. No perversity, misreading of evidence or legal infirmity has been demonstrated before this Court. Thus, conviction recorded by trial Court does not warrant interference. 19. However, while conviction is justified, this Court must also consider proportionality of sentence. Taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is a young person, the incident occurred in the year 2022; has remained in custody for a substantial period and the victim survived after treatment and no prior criminal antecedents were shown. Considering these mitigating circumstances, ends of justice would be served by reducing sentence to period already undergone while 9 maintaining conviction. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed house trespass and caused grievous, life-threatening injury to the victim. Conviction under Sections 450 and 307 IPC is legally sustainable and requires no interference. However, sentence deserves modification in view of mitigating factors. 20. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 450 and 307 IPC is affirmed. The trial court has relied excessively on presumption over direct evidence and failed to apply necessary safeguards applicable in criminal trials. While the conviction under Section 450 IPC stands with the appellant awarding 7 years RI and fine, the sentence under Section Section 307 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him in view of the mitigating factors, doubt on intention and appellant’s subsequent conduct. 21. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Sections 450 and 307 IPC are maintained. However, the sentence of 10 years RI under Section 307 IPC is reduced to that of 7 years. Since the appellant is already in custody, no order regarding his arrest etc. is required. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.04 16:22:23 +0530