1 2025:CGHC:53779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2075 of 2025 Narendra Rathore S/o Sudarshan Rathore Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Agriyapara Newri Nawapara, P.S. Gaurela, District Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Gaurela, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 04/11/2025 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard fi- nally at motion stage. 2 2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2025 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 42/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine amount of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal are that on 26.06.2024 at around 10:30 to 11:00 am injured was sowing in yard of his in-laws house along with his wife Sunita Choudhary, father-in-law Chudu Chaudhary, mother-in-law and sister-in-law Somti Chaudhary was talking to his father-in-law at that time present appellant came and started abusing his recalling sour past and assaulted by axe on his face and neck due to which victim fall and appellant ran away from the spot. Hearing the loud wailing Durgesh Choudhary came on the spot where Anita narrated him about the incident, Durgesh Kumar gave information to the police. 4. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.PC 3 was also recorded in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record including the evidence of the witnesses, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad, District Bilaspur has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as described in paragraph No. 2 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case under Section 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. The versions of the witnesses are unreliable and untrustworthy. The prosecution story is plotted against the appellant and the report was prepared with pre- planned scheme to implicate him falsely. No independent witness was examined. It is further contended that from perusal of the entire evidence, it is clear that even by accepting the whole case of prosecution, it would reveal that the incident took place in spur of movement and there is no preparation of motive for causing injury of any nature to the victim. It is further contended that prosecution has failed to adduce any cogent and reliable piece of evidence to prove the guilt of appellants. Without there being any sufficient, cogent and clinching evidence/material available on record, conviction of appellant is not sustainable. Alternatively, counsel for the accused/appellant submits that if the conviction part of the judgment impugned is not going to be interfered with, keeping in mind the fact that the accused/appellant has already 4 remained behind the bars for about 2 years, the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone. 7. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that taking into consideration the statements of Dr. Subhadra Painkar (PW-12) and Dr. Vijay Kumar Kurre (PW-14) which gets corroboration from the testimony of other independent witnesses, the findings recorded by the Second Additional Sessions Judge holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 307 of IPC being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record are fully justified and do not call for any interference in this appeal. 8. Heard counsel for the parties at length and went through the evidence on record with utmost care and caution. 9. PW-1/Chuduu Chaudhary has deposed that the accused is a neighbor who assaulted his son-in-law Suresh with an axe approximately two or three months prior. He also deposed that the accused allegedly used abusive language and assaulted his son- in-law on the right cheek with an axe in the fencing (बाड़). PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 have supported the statement of PW-1. 10. PW-8/Suresh Kumar Chaudhary/ injured has deposed that on the date of incident, the accused came and abused him and hit him with a sickle causing injuries on his right cheek and neck after which he became unconscious thereafter he was taken to the hospital. 5 11. Dr. Subhadra Paikra, Medical Officer in Sanatorium Hospital/District Hospital gave her report Ex. P/18 wherein she stated that the injured sustained following injuries: 1. A cut wound on the right cheek measuring 7cm x 1cm x 1cm. 2. A torn wound on the right side of the neck measuring 5cm x 1cm x 0.5cm and bleeding profusely. 12. Thus from the evidence of the PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-12, it is crystal clear that the accused/appellant had hit the injured with axe , as a result of which injured suffered aforesaid injuries. According to the statement of the Dr. Subhadra Paikra (PW-12), the injuries sustained by the victim was serious in nature. 13. Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, in considered opinion of this Court that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the trial Court. Thus, conviction of appellant is hereby affirmed. 14. As regards the quantum of sentence, the learned trial court has held in para 40 of its judgment dated 29.08.2025 that thedefense has presented a medical slip dated 20.10.2023 which shows that the accused was mentally ill and has undergone treatment and the incident took place approximately after seven to eight months later. From the perusal of the record and after considering the statements of the witnesses, it does not reflect that there was 6 previous enmity by and between the parties. Therefore, it can be assumed that at the time of incident, the accused was not fully medically fit and being mentally retarded has committed the offence. 15. Considering that incident in question took place on 26.06.2024 and now more than 1 year have passed. During this period, appellant must have suffered tremendous mental trauma and anguish of trial. The offence was committed by the appellant spontaneously due to heat of anger with axe and hit the injured Suresh on his cheek, due to which he became unconscious and has undergone treatment. Looking to the evidence available on the face of record, it is crystal clear that the incident has taken place with sudden provocation and heat of passion and without any premeditation, and there is no motive available. The appellant have already undergone around 1 year 4 months and 9 days of substantive sentence imposed by trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellant (RI for 7 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 7 years to RI 3 years. Therefore, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is hereby reduced to R.I. for 3 years. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. However, fine sentence imposed by trial Court is maintained. 7 17. With the aforesaid observations, the instant appeal is partly allowed to the extent shown above. 18. Records of the Court below be sent back along with copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima