1 2025:CGHC:53260 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 302 of 2025 Jai Singh Kanvar S/o Gambhir Singh Kanvar Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Kanaibahra Katelpara, P.S.- Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Gajanand, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 31/10/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 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 08.11.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad, District- Bilaspur, in Session Trial 2 No. 18/2023, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sen- tenced 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 the complainant Sudhar Singh lodged report at police station- Pendra, on 01.03.2023 at about 7:00 pm, cousin brother Jayanath Singh Kanwar was in his house, his elder brother Jaisingh Kanwar set fire in the bedclothes in his house by striking a matchstick, which Jayanath Singh Kanwar went and stopped, but Jaisingh got angry and said that he will kill him, and took out an axe from his house and hit Jayanath Singh Kanwar on the left side of his head above the forehead and fell on the ground, who was brought to the District Hospital, G.P.M. at about 7:00-8:00 pm for immediate treatment and after giving primary treatment, the doctor referred him from District Hospital, G.P.M. to CIMS, Bilaspur but the injured got treatment at Vandana Private Hospital, Bilaspur. 4. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC was 3 also recorded in which he pleaded his 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, 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 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submits that as there was no intention on the part of the accused/appellant to cause injury to the victim, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. 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 deceased. It is further contended that prosecution has failed to adduce any cogent and reliable piece of evidence to prove the guilt of appellant. Without there being any sufficient, cogent and clinching evidence/material available on record, conviction of appellants 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 is in jail since 31.03.2023 and has already remained behind the bars for about 2 years and 7 4 months, 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. C.S. Uikey (PW-13) which gets corroboration from the testimony of other independent witnesses, the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 307 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. Jaynath Singh (PW-3)/ Injured deposed that the accused is his real brother. His house and the accused’s house are at the same lace but they live separately. On the day of incident, at around 7 in the evening, the accused was taking out all the belongings from his house and burning them, upon which he interrupted the accused. On this, the accused hit him on the left side of his head with a tangia due to which he fell down and became unconscious. He showed the left side of his head and back in which cut marks are visible. 10. The witnesses, i.e., Jaynath Singh (PW-3), Safirat Bai (PW-04), Nimni (PW-05), Priti Painkara (PW-6), have unanimously testified 5 that the victim Jaynath Singh received injury on the left side of the head. 11. Dharmnarayan Tiwari (PW-12), Investigating Officer has deposed that he submitted an application (Ex. P/14-A) to the District Hospital, Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi for medical examination of the injured Jaynath Singh and an application for a curie of the injury (Ex. P/15). 12. Dr. Vipin Bhardwaj (PW-10) has deposed that he was posted as Medical Officer in the District Hospital, Gaurela, Pendra-Marwahi. On 03.03.2023, Constable Pramod Khalkho No. 214 of Pendra Police Station, brought the injured Jaynath Kanwar to him for medical examination. According to the injured, he had been attacked with an axe by his elder brother. Upon examination, he found a 15-20 cm lacerated wound on the left side of his forehead, from which a stream of blood flowed. The injured’s skull had been opened 10-15 cm, exposing his brain. He stitched the victim’s forehead to stop the bleeding. After providing first aid, he was referred to CIMS, Bilaspur for further treatment. He advised the injured to undergo CT Scan. The report prepared by him is Ex. P/14. 13. Dr. C.S. Uikey (PW-13) has deposed that he is a Medical Specialist in the New Vandana Private Hospital, Bilaspur. On 02.03.2023, the injured Jaynath Kanwar was admitted to the hospital for treatment by his younger brother, Milap Singh. 6 According to the injured, he had been assaulted and suffered an axe injury to his head. He received initial treatment at Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi Hospital. After receiving initial treatment, he was referred to CIMS, Bilaspur. The victim was then brought to his hospital, New Vandana Hospital, Bilaspur. Upon examination, he found that the victim had a deep injury measuring 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the left side of his head. The wound was bleeding. He also had a small lacerated wound above his left eye. He also had a lacerated bruise in the temporal region above his left ear. The above injuries were stitched. The injured underwent treatment at his hospital from 02.03.2023 to 04.03.2023. During the treatment, the hospital conducted a CT Scan of the injured’s head injury. The CT Scan report revealed a fracture in the victim’s frontal bone and blood accumulation within the head. The CT Scan report is Ex. P/24. 14. Thus from the evidence of the PW-3, PW-10, PW-12, PW-13, 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. Vipin Bharadwaj (PW-10) and Dr. C.S. Uikey (PW-13), the injuries sustained by the victim was grievous in nature. 15. 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 7 Court. Thus, conviction of appellant is hereby affirmed. 16. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering that incident in question took place on 01.03.2023 and the accused was arrested on 31.03.2023 and was never released on bail. He has already remained behind bars for about 2 years and 7 months. During these years, 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, due to which he suffered injuries. Looking to the evidence available on the face of record, it is crystal clear that the incident has taken place with the heat of passion and without any premeditation. The appellant has already undergone 2 years and 7 months 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 R.I. for 7 years to R.I. for 05 years. Therefore, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is hereby reduced to R.I. for 5 years. 17. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. However, fine sentence imposed by trial Court is maintained. 18. With the aforesaid observations, the instant appeal is partly allowed to the extent shown above. 8 19. 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