1 2025:CGHC:53149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on : 16. 10. 2025 Judgment Delivered on : 31.10. 2025 CRA No. 972 of 2022 Bhagwat Das Vaishnav S/o Arjun Vaishnav Aged About 50 Years R/o Teacher Colony, Behind, Ashoka College Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent / State : Mrs. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi CAV JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth, Cr.P.C.) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.6.2022 passed by learned Upper Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 33/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI 2 for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that appellant and victim are husband & wife in relation. The appellant used to sell fruits at Bus Stand, Kawardha and thereby he earned livelihood of his family but because of financial crunch, he had lot of debt, therefore, he remained in tension and quarrel also happened between him and his wife (victim). Under such stress, 10 days prior to the incident, appellant had left the home without informing family members, hence, upon missing report lodged by victim (appellant's wife) on 02.04.2019, police recovered him and handed over to the victim. On next day i.e. on 03.04.2019 at about 8 O’ clock in the morning, when victim was sorting the rice at her home, appellant attacked on her neck by means of sickle, which the victim held to protect herself, despite which she sustained injuries on her neck, hands, legs etc. Upon hearing screams of victim, their neighbour, Lilak Ram Sahu (PW-2) rushed to their house and informed about the incident to her brother – Narayan Das Vaishnav (PW-3), but before his reaching at the place of occurrence, victim was taken to the hospital by her son-in-law, hence, her brother directly rushed to the hospital, where victim informed him about the incident. Based on above facts, her brother Narayan Das Vaishnav (PW-3) lodged FIR (Ex.P-3) against the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC in Police Station Kabeerdham, District Kabeerdham. During course of investigation, police & patwari prepared spot (Ex.P-7) & (Ex.P-6), respectively. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Medical examination of victim was conducted by Dr. Keshav Dhruv (PW-8), in which, vide MLC report (Ex.P-11), he reported total 10 injuries found on the body of the victim. Blood stained soil, plain soil and blood present on the floor at the place of occurrence was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-4). Blood stained 3 clothes i.e. saree, petticoat and blouse of the victim was seized from her vide seizure memo (Ex.P-5). Dying declaration (Ex.P-9) of victim was recorded by Executive Magistrate Smt. Bisahin Chauhan (PW-4). On the basis of memorandum statement (Ex.P-1) of appellant, blood stained sickle, one light pink coloured towel and Baniyan of appellant were seized from him vide seizure memo (Ex.P-2). Seized blood stained articles were sent for medical examination, in which, vide report (Ex.P-12), Dr. Keshav Dhurv (PW-8) opined that injuries sustained to the victim could be caused by the sickle seized at the behest of appellant. For examining the presence of blood stains on the recovered articles, he suggested to send the same for FSL, which was sent to FSL, in which vide FSL report (Ex. P-18), blood stained is reported to be found in Articles A, B, C, D, E, F & G. It is also reported that the blood found in articles B, C, E and F was of “B” group. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 307 of the IPC was filed against the appellant/accused under Section 307 of the IPC, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge and thereafter the case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, who tried the case. 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabeerdham framed charge under Section 307 of the IPC, which was read and explained to the appellant, who abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 5. So as to hold appellant/accused guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. Statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, pleaded innocence and false implication. He has taken defence that victim & her family members assaulted him, hence, he was admitted in 4 hospital and to prevent themselves, a false report was lodged against him. He has not examined any witness in his defence. 6. After considering evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned Upper Sessions Judge held appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him, as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment, which has been challenged by the appellant in the instant appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim and the appellant are wife & husband. They belong to poor financial strata, as appellant/accused earns his livelihood by selling fruit, but since his business was not doing well, therefore, he had taken loan to maintain livelihood of his family. In this circumstances, victim used to quarrel with him, hence he remained under a lot of stress and left the house also few days prior to the incident. He further submits that after about 10 days, he returned home. Instant dispute occurred on account of payment of school fees of their daughter, as on being asked by victim to the appellant for payment of school fees, dispute coupled with scuffle between them happened and in that dispute, both of them sustained injuries, therefore, on same day, both of them were admitted in District Hospital, Kabeerdham i.e. on 3.4.2019. Looking to the injuries sustained by both of them, doctor referred them to Raipur, but victim was taken to Raipur by his brothers, but since the appellant was arrested by the Police, therefore, he could not go to Raipur for treatment. He further submits that except evidence of victim, there is no other evidence to hold appellant’s guilty for the offence of attempt to murder of his own wife, rather it is evident from evidence of prosecution witnesses itself, that incident occurred due to quarrel erupted between husband & wife, but learned trial 5 Court without considering evidence in its true perspective has convicted the appellant by the impugned judgment, which is perverse and contrary to the record. Hence, he prays that appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted of the of the offence charged against him by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by learned Upper Sessions Judge, Kabeerdham. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the victim herself is an injured witness, whose deposition of assault by appellant to her vital part has not been elicited in her cross-examination, rather it was revealed by the witnesses, who immediately present on the spot as well as the medical evidence and FSL report. Thus, conviction of appellant is based on well appreciation of evidence available on record, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. Geeta Vaishnav (PW-7) is victim, Shruti Vaishnav (PW-1) is daughter of victim & appellant, Narayan Das Vaishnav (PW-3) is brother of victim and Akhilesh Vaishnav (PW-6) is husband of victim’s sister. 11. Undisputedly and it also proves from deposition of victim and her relatives that the appellant and victim Geeta Vaishnav (PW-7) are husband & wife in relation and they have three children. Their daughter – Shruti Vaishnav (PW-1) has stated in her deposition that her elder brother is pursuing Pharmacy course at Bilaspur and her next brother was pursuing B.Sc. at Bilaspur. She herself was studying in Holly Cross School at Kawardha, as has been deposed by her mother Geeta Vaishnave (PW-7). It is also proved from deposition of victim and her aforesaid relatives that to 6 earn livelihood of his family, appellant used to sell fruits in Bus Stand, Kawardha, but victim Geeta Vaishnav (PW-7) has admitted in paragraph 23 of her cross-examination that the appellant had sent their elder son to Kota (Rajasthan) for study, so that, he could become a doctor. She has also admitted that prior to instant incident, business of appellant was not doing well, therefore, quarrel frequently occurred between them. It is also proved from deposition of victim and her aforesaid relatives that because of such circumstances, few days prior to the incident, appellant had left his house without informing his family members, therefore, she had lodged missing report, thereafter, the police recovered him and handed over to the victim one day prior to the incident i.e. on 2.4.2019. 12. Incident of instant case occurred in the morning at about 8 A.M. on 3.4.2019. Victim – Geeta Vaishnav (PW-7) has stated in her deposition that at the time of incident she was sorting rice, at that time, the appellant was sitting behind her. She demanded money from him to pay school fees of their daughter, then appellant, in a fit of anger, covered her mouth with one hand and stabbed her in her neck with sickle with an intention to kill her, hence, she had sustained injuries on her neck and 8 fingers of her both the hands, as also on her both the legs from the sickle. She has further stated that when she shouted for help, neighbours came to her rescue and at that time she had fainted, therefore, she was not aware, who took her to the hospital. She had denied the suggestion in cross-examination that on being quarrel taken place between them. She had denied the suggestion in her cross- examination that during a quarrel between them, she had hit herself on the neck with a sickle, saying that she would commit suicide, at that time the appellant ran towards her to save her and while snatching the sickle from him, she got injured by the sickle in the scuffle. 7 13. Lilakram Sahu (PW-2) is the neighbour of the victim, who on hearing the screams of the victim, reached her house and found the victim lying on the ground near her door and asking for water, then he gave her water. He further deposed that he immediately informed to her brother – Narayn Das Vaishnav (PW-3) about the incident, who reported the matter to the police. 14. Shruti Vaishnav (PW-1), who is daughter of victim, Narayan Das Vaishnav (PW-3), who is brother of victim and Akhilesh Vaishnave (PW-6), who is husband of victim’s sister are not the eye witnesses to the incident, rather when they reached to the hospital, then they were informed by victim that appellant had assaulted her by means of sickle. 15. Executive Magistrate - Smt. Bisahin Chauhan (PW-4) recorded dying declaration (Ex.P-9) of victim on 3.4.2019. Though since the victim survived, therefore, importance of that that dying declaration only remains to be statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., but in that statement also, victim had informed Executive Magistrate that appellant had assaulted upon her by means of sickle, therefore,she had sustained injuries on her neck, hands and legs. 16. Dr. Keshav Dhruv (PW-8) had medically examined the victim on 3.4.2019, when she was taken to District hospital immediately after the incident. On being examined, he has reported to be found following injuries in the body of the victim vide MLC report (Ex.P-11) :- “1. Incised wound over right side neck in the size of 18 x 3 x 3cm in an inverted V shape. The muscle fiber cut transversely, margin clear, edges smooth and clear cut well defined. It extend from upper 1/3rd of sternocleadomastoid muscle and running to angle of 8 mandible to midline of neck, upper to thyroid cartilage or mental to sub mental region. 2. Incised wound present on right upper forearm in the size of 4 x .2 x .5 spindle shaped, margin clear . 3. Incised wound present on right medial aspect of foot in the size 3 X 1 X .5 cm spindle shaped margin clear. 4. Incised wound present on right side palmer aspect of middle phalanges of all four finger 1 x .2 x .2 cm spindle shape margin clear. 5. Incised wound present on left side palmer aspect of palm, middle phalanges in the size of 6 x .1 x.1 cm margin clear. 6. Incised wound present on back side of neck in the size of 5 x .1 x.1 c.m. margin clear. 7. Incised wound preset on left cheek in the size of 7 cm long, margin clear. 8. Incised wound present in left cheek in the size of 7 cm long, margin clear. 9. Abrasion present on left shoulder in size of 4 x 1 cm. According to above finding, injuries are caused due to hard & sharp object, however, patient is better referred to Medical College, Raipur for further management and opinion.” 9 17. Blood stained soil & plain soil were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-4) by Sanaj Kumar yadav (PW-9), who is Investigating Officer of the case. He also seized blood stained saree, petticoat & blouse of vide seizure memo (Ex.P-5). He also seized blood stained sickle, towel and Baniyan of appellant vide Ex.P-2. In FSL report (Ex. P-18), human blood is reported to be found in aforesaid articles. 18. At the time of incident, only appellant and the victim were present in their house. Their daughter Shruti Vaishnav (PW-1) had gone to school. Victim (PW-7) has clearly deposed that she sustained aforesaid injuries on being assault made by appellant upon her by means of sickle, which was prevented by her by holding sickle, therefore, she has sustained injuries in 8 fingers of her both the hands. She had also sustained injuries on neck & legs, which also get support from medical evidence of Dr. Keshave Dhruv (PW-8), but it is also found proved from deposition of their daughter Shruti Vaishnav (PW-1) and Investigating Officer – Sanjay Kumar Yadav (PW-9) that on the date of incident, appellant/accused was also admitted in District Hospital, Kawardha, as he had sustained injuries on his head. This fact is very well proved particularly by Dr. Keshav Dhurv (PW-8), who has admitted in paragraphs 26 & 27 of her cross-examination that on 03.04.2019 at about 9.30 AM, he had examined the appellant, upon which, he found that he was complaining pain and swelling over his scull and he also found lacerated wound in size of 3 x 0.5 x 0.2 cm in his right occipital region. He has also admitted that appellant’s wound was stitched and he was also referred to MEKAHARA, Raipur for further treatment. In this regard, he has proved his medical report (Ex. D-1). Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid evidence that appellant has also sustained injuries, but victim, her brother Narayan Das Vaishnav (PW-3) and Akhilesh Vaishnav (PW-6), who is husband of victim’s 10 sister have not stated anything in their deposition that as to how the appellant had sustained injuries, rather they have shown their ignorance in this regard. 19. Form the occular as well as medical evidence brought by the prosecution, it is found proved that appellant had assaulted victim by means of sickle, which the victim held to protect herself, therefore, she had also sustained injuries on her fingers of both the hands, despite that injuries was caused upon her on her neck, but it is also proved that she had also sustained injuries on her legs. Injuries were also sustained by the appellant. But in what circumstances, he sustained injuries, has not been explained by the prosecution or its witnesses, rather Investigation Officer - Sanjay Kumar Yadav (PW-9) has admitted in paragraph 12 of his cross-examination that during course of incident, scuffle had taken place, hence, appellant had also sustained injuries, but it is very well proved from deposition of victim that appellant was assailant in instant incident, therefore, simple injuries sustained by appellant in that scuffle even in absence of clarification by the prosecution side, deposition of victim and other witness, which is well supported by medical evidence as well as FSL report is found to be trustworthy to prove the fact that appellant assaulted victim by means of sickle and caused aforesaid injuries on his neck, fingers of both the hands and legs also. 20. It is settled preposition of law that to justify a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The Section makes a distinction between 11 an act of accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be a cases in which the concrete would be liable under this Section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault would be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. 21. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sivamani & another vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Vellore Taluk Police Station, Vellor District 1 , while considering conviction of accused under Section 307 of IPC has held in paragraph 9 as under :- “9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5SCC 554, the Court held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. In the same judgment, it was pointed out that ‘...The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.’ The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone 1 Cr.A. No. 3619 of 2023, decided on 28th November, 2023 12 does not dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (supra) and Kanha(supra), it was observed that while grievous or life-threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.” 22. Taking the aforesaid situations as has been envisages by the Supreme Court in afore-cited case with the facts of the present case, then it would clearly reveal that the appellant assaulted victim by means of sickle, which is sharp edged weapon, that too, on his neck, which is vital part of the body, therefore, she has not only sustained injuries on his neck mentioned in point No. 1 & 2 in deposition of Dr. Keshav Dhruv (PW-8), rather she has also sustained injuries on her 8 fingers of both the hands, as to protect herself, she held blade of the sickle, if she would not hold the blade of sickle, then deadly injuries could be caused to her, that too, in vital part of the neck. All these facts show intention, as also knowledge of appellant pertaining to his act i.e. causing injuries on the neck of victim by sharp edged sickle, it could be dangerous to her life. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by Upper Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, 13 does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Hence, conviction of appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC is hereby affirmed. 23. So far as sentence part of the impugned judgment is concerned, indisputably, appellant and victim are husband & wife in relation. Appellant used to sell fruits to maintain livelihood of his family. He intended to make doctor to his elder son and also provided best study to two other two children, but because of not doing well in his business, he faced financial difficulties, which give rise to quarrel between husband & wife. In such circumstances, instant incident occurred, therefore, having considered aforesaid facts, sentencing the appellant for three years is found to be on higher side, rather in the instant case, as per impugned judgment and certificate appended under Section 428 Cr.P.C., appellant has already remained in jail for 413 days, therefore, this court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in sending him further to serve out the remaining jail sentence and interest of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 24. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellant is maintained, imposition of punishment of fine is also maintained but jail sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 413 days. 25. The appellant is reported to be on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bond shall remain in force for a further period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 481 of the of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 14 26. Record of the Upper Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham and copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and needful. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.11.01 12:07:17 +0530