1 2025:CGHC:53261 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 669 of 2024 Dilmohan Jangade S/o Jagdish Jangade Aged About 39 Years R/o Sivni, P.S. Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment 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 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and or- der of sentence dated 25.01.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Be- 2 metara, District-Bemetara (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 38/2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as fol- lows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine amount of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal are that the complainant Gajpal Markandey has made written complaint to the concerned police station that he is residing with his family members at Village- Atariya, Chowki Khandsara, District- Bemetara, C.G. and on 24.09.2020 at about 4:00 a.m. Bhupendra Jangde has informed to him by his mobile that his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Dilmohan Jangde has assaulted upon her head by axe, as a result of which injured received simple injury and on the basis of such information, the police has registered the FIR bearing Crime No. 276/2020 for the offence under Section 307 of IPC against the appellant. 4. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC was 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, Sessions 3 Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara 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 has already remained behind the bars for about 2 years and 5 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. L.D. Thakur (PW-13) which gets corroboration 4 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. PW-1/Gajpal Markande has deposed that approximately two and half years ago, during the lockdown, the accused’s brother Bhupendra called the witness to inform him that the accused had hit his wife, Hirabai, with an axe. The witness went to the government hospital and saw his sister with bleeding injuries on her head and neck. The witness reported the incident to the police. 10. PW-2/Hira Jange/ victim has deposed that on the day of the incident, she had made food for the children and was cooking. At that time, the accused came after gambling and started verbally abusing her, saying he had lost money in gambling and told her to ask her brother for Rs. 30,000/-. She told him that her brothers are poor and they cannot arrange the money. The accused then sat in the house and she was in the kitchen. She gave food to her in-laws and was about to give food to the children when the accused hit her on the head with a rod. She ran to her in-laws, who intervened. If her in-laws had not intervened, the accused 5 would have killed her. When she insisted to her in-laws that she would go to her parent’s house, her in-laws said that it was late and told her to sleep with them and not to go to his room. She slept with her in-laws. While she was sleeping,t he accused hit her on the head with the axe at around 3:00-4:00 am. She turned and saw the accused holding the axe, she told her in-laws to save her, and at that moment, the accused hit her on the cheek with the axe as a result of which she fainted. She was admitted in Balaji Hospital where she undergone treatment for about 23 days. 11. PW- 13/Dr. L.D. Thakur who medically examined the injured/victim has prepared his report (Ex. P/10) has deposed that during the examination of the victim, he found that the injured had an incised wound of 8 cm x 1.5 cm on her right cheek, which was caused by a sharp and hard weapon. On the head above the left ear, there was a mark of an injury of 7.5 cm x 0.1 cm, which was also caused by a sharp and hard weapon. In his opinion, the injuries were grievous in nature and if the aforesaid injuries had not been treated in time, death was likely to have occurred from the said injuries. 12. PW-13/ Dr. Gurpal Singh Chhabbra deposed that he was employed as a Consultant in the Plastic Surgery Department at Balaji Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur, C.G. from 2013 to 2020. During his tenure, on 23.10.2023 the Nawagarh Police Station, in connection with case no. 276/2020 under Section 307 of IPC requested bedhead tickets, X-ray reports and CT scan 6 documents related to the treatment of Smt. Hirabai Jangde, who was treated at at the hospital for a serious head injury from September 24, 2020 to October 15, 2020. in this regard, a letter was written to the Nawagarh police station which is exhibited as Ex. P/25, bearing the seal of Balaji Hospital. 13. Thus from the evidence of the PW-1, PW-2, PW-13, PW-19, it is crystal clear that the accused/appellant had hit the injured with ax , as a result of which injured suffered aforesaid injuries. According to the statement of the Dr. L.D. Thakur (PW-13), the injuries sustained by the victim was grievous in nature. 14. 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. 15. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering that incident in question took place in the year 2020 and now almost 5 years have passed. 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 she 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 7 undergone 2 years and 5 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 10 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 10 years to RI 05 years. Therefore, the sentence imposed upon the appellant is hereby reduced to R.I. for 5 years. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. However, fine sentence imposed by trial Court is maintained. 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