1 2025:CGHC:61374 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 333 of 2005 Yogesh Patel, S/o Rajesh Patel, aged about 18 years, Occupation Tailoring work, R/o. Village Mohapali, Thana Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (CG) ... Appellant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate Raigarh (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Kishan Kumar Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Puriya, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 16/12/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.4.2005 passed by Fourth Upper Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Raigarh (CG) in Special Session Case No.143/2004, whereby the learned Fourth Upper Sessions Judge, after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:- Sl. No. Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 01. 307 IPC RI for 07 years Rs.200/- RI for 02 months BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.12.17 17:34:09 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on account of dispute between brother of the complainant and friends of the appellant, on 03.9.2004, when the complainant was returning to his home from the market along with his father, then the appellant and his friend Sonu (juvenile) stopped them, took victim on the motor cycle to village Bhramanpali and assaulted the victim by means of knife on his back with intention to kill him. Somehow the victim escaped and ran away. Villagers also reached there the the victim informed about the incident to one Ramesh Agrawal, who took him to his village. Based on above facts, FIR (Ex-P/2) was lodged naming juvenile offender Sonu and his friend. Spot map (Ex-P/1) was prepared, statement of the witnesses were recorded, the appellant was arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded, knife was seized from him vide seizure memo Ex-P/4. Medical examination of the victim was conducted by Dr. DC Kinger (PW-9), and vide MLC report Ex-P/6A, he opined that the victim sustained incised wound of 1 x ½ x ½ on left thumb and penetrating injury of 2 x 1 cm on the right side of the back by hard and sharp & pointing object. The victim was referred to surgical specialist and treatment. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 307, 34 IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Raigarh, thereafter the case was transferred to Fourth Upper Sessions Judge, Raigarh. Supplementary charge sheet was filed against the juvenile offender before the concerned Court. 3. To bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. Examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, in which the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the 3 prosecution evidence, claiming himself to be innocent and false implication. No defence witness has been examined by the appellant. 4. After completion of the trial, the learned Fourth Upper Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, and sentenced him as has been mentioned in the opening paragraph. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred instant appeal. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the appellant does not want to press this appeal as regards to the conviction part of the impugned judgment, rather he would confine his argument only to the sentence part. He further submits that as per the medical report, the victim had sustained two injuries, but the victim himself has deposed that only single blow was made upon him by the knife, that too was upon his back. But it has not been proved that any injury sustained to the victim was deadly. He further submits that the appellant remained in jail from 27.9.2004 to 17.11.2004 and thereafter from the date of judgment dated 04.4.2005 to 03.5.2005 i.e. date of granting bail by this court. Thus, he remained in jail for total 84 days. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment of conviction, as also the sentence part of the judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the record of the Court below with utmost circumspection. 8. Though learned counsel for the appellant is not pressing instant appeal on the conviction part of the impugned judgment, but having gone through the deposition of the victim (PW-3) and medical evidence of Dr. DC 4 Kinger (PW-9), who examined the victim and reported two injuries, one on his right side back at T12 level, which is said to be incised injury and second on his left thumb. It has not been established by the prosecution that the appellant had intention to kill the victim and injury caused to the victim is neither found to deadly nor on the vital part of the victim. It has also not been proved that aforesaid injury was grievous in nature, therefore, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC is not found to be proper, hence, his conviction is modified and instead of Section 307 IPC, the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC. 9. So far as the sentence part is concerned, only one injury was caused to the victim by sharp edged object; this case is pending against the appellant since 2004; the appellant remained in jail during trial from 27.9.2004 to 17.11.2004 and from 04.4.2005 to 03.5.2005, i.e. total 84 days, hence, considering aforesaid facts and nature of injury, ends of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him as above for the offence under Section 324 IPC. 10. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant is modified and he is convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC along with fine of Rs.200/-, which has already been deposited by him. However, the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him, i.e. 84 days. 11. The appellant is said to be on bail. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with record of the concerned Court below be transmitted forthwith for compliance and needful, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini