1 2025:CGHC:56276 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1823 of 2025 1 - Shiva Markam S/o Shri Fandar Markam Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Pani Tanki Dongargaon, Police Station-Dongargaon, Dis- trict Rajnandgaon C.G. 2 - Devkaran Telasi S/o Shri Dewanand Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Matiya Road Dongargaon, Police Station-Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon C.G. 3 - Bheema Markam S/o Shri Fandar Markam Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Bodhitola Dongargaon, Police Station-Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon C.G. 4 - Dev Kumar Telasi S/o Shri Dewanand Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Matiya Road Dongargaon, Police Station-Dongargaon, Dis- trict Rajnandgaon C.G. ... appellants(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Dongargaon, District Rajnandgoan C.G. ---- Respondent For appellants : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble S hri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 19.11.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of B.N.S.S. by the appellants against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon 2 (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 62/2020, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Section Sentenced 147 of Indian Penal Code (all the accused/appel- lants) S.I. for 6 months & fine of Rs. 300/- in default of fine 15 days S.I. (for all the accused/appellants) 148 of Indian Penal Code (all the accused/appel- lants) S.I. for 1 year & fine of Rs. 500/- in default of fine one month S.I. (for all the accused/appellants) 323 of Indian Penal Code (all the accused/appel- lants) S.I. for 2 months & fine of Rs. 200/- in default of fine 7 days S.I. (for all the accused/appellants) 307, r/w 149 (3 times) of Indian Penal Code (all the accused/appellants) S.I. for 5 years (three times) with fine of Rs. 1000/- (three times) and, in default of payment of fine, 3 months S.I. (three times) (for all the accused/appellants) All sentences run concurrently & fine amount has been deposited 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.07.2020 a report was made by the complainant Smt. Bhagwati Markam against 6 per- sons with the averment that on 22.07.2020, there was an engage- ment ceremony at the house of neighbor Devanand Dewar, in which people known to them from Chilhati and Dongargaon had come. At around 9:00pm, they were shouting very loudly. Hearing this, she and her sister’s son Manoj stopped them from shouting. The co-ac- cused persons hearing this assaulted Manoj and upon getting infor- mation about the incident, her son Dharmendra and her sister’s son Suraj came out of the house asking why Manoj was beaten up, then suddenly the co-accused Bhima, Vikas, Devkaran, Shiva, Dev Ku- 3 mar, Raj all with iron daggers, tangi and sticks attacked her son Dharmendra and her sister’s sons Manoj and Suraj with the inten- tion of killing them. Due to which Dharmendra got injured on his forehead and near his left elbow, head and forehead and Manoj got injured in his stomach. When she came to know about the incident and went to intervene, they beat her too, due to which she got in- jured in her right arm and stomach. During the fight, the com- plainant saw the appellants Bhima Dewar had an iron dagger, Dev Kumar a stick and Raj Telasi a stick. Jyoti, Preeti and Salma saw and heard the incident. On the said complaint of the complainant, the Dongargaon Police Station, District Rajnandgaon has regis- tered a case under Crime No. 128/2020, sections 147, 148, 323/149, 307/149 of IPC against the accused Bhima, Vikas, De- vkaran, Shiva, Devkumar and Raj. After completion of investigation, the appellants have been arrested. The charge-sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences against the appellants / accused before the competent Court against the appellants. 3. In order to bring home the above-stated offences, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. Statement of the accused/ap- pellants were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, in which they denied their guilt and have taken the stand that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 4. The learned First Additional Session Judge, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 23.07.2025, convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 4 147, 148, 323 307, 149 (3 times) of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that conviction of the appellants is erroneous, contrary to the evidence and is bad in law. The (injured witness), has turned hostile during trial and they are not supporting the case of the prosecution and the injured witness (PW-1) has categorically stated in his deposition that he does not know the appellants and has not attributed any role to them in the alleged incident. The statement of the complainant as well as the in- jured do not inspire confidence, there is majority of contradictions and omissions. He further submits that there was no intention to commit an offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 307, 149 (3 times) of IPC and the case against the appellants under Section 147, 148, 323 307, 149 (3 times) IPC is not made out from the evi- dence brought by the prosecution. He submits that seizure wit- nesses of alleged weapon used, have not supported the case of prosecution, therefore, it becomes doubtful and the appellants may be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. Ultimately, he submits that in the event the conviction of the appellants is upheld, looking to the evidence, injury sustained and the overt act, the sentence which has been awarded appears to be irrational and requires re- duction. Therefore, the sentence awarded may be reduced to pe- riod already undergone by enhancing the fine amount and awarding compensation to the injured. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sivamani and Anr. Vs. State represented by Inspec- 5 tor of Police in CRA No. 3619 of 2023. 6. Learned State counsel however supports the judgment impugned and argued that there are many criminal antecedents against the present appellants. The statement of the injured and complainant is credible and they have clearly established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the medical re- port and the statement of the doctor clearly establishes the injury sustained by the injured on their vital part which indicates the inten- tion on the part of the appellants to commit such an offence. He goes on to submit that looking to the overt act, no leniency should be shown to the appellants for reduction of his sentence, he there- fore, prays that his submission may be rejected. The trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for offences punish- able under Sections 147, 148, 323 307, 149 (3 times) of the IPC. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. Injured- Dharmendra Markam (PW-5)- stated in his deposition that the incident occurred about 3-4 years ago. An engagement cere- mony was taking place at out neighbor Devchand Dewar’s House. It was around 09:00 pm. Then, some drunken guests arrived and as- saulted them, he could not recognize them because it was dark. He stated further that the police did not question him and take his statement. He was injured and was treated at Dongargaon Hospi- tal. Suraj Dewar, Chhotu Dewar, Bhagwati Bai and Manoj Markam 6 were also injured. 9. Injured- Chhotu Dewar (PW-1) has deposed in his deposition that he did not know the accused/appellants. It was night, his brother’s wedding was taking place. There was a fight going on. He went to rescue them, but it was dark and he could not see anything. While trying to rescue them, he was stabbed in the chest and near the waist. He fell unconscious after being stabbed. He was brought to the District Hospital Rajnandgaon for treatment. He further stated in his cross-examination that it was dark and the wedding guests were fighting among themselves and he was speculating about the stab- bing and he did not know how or why the fight occurred. 10.Injured- Suraj Markam (PW-6) has disposed in his deposition that fight broke out at the engagement ceremony at night. During the fight, someone punched him in the eye. Due to darkness, he could not see who hit him. Dharmendra Markam, Chhotu Dewar and Bhagabati Bai were also injured in the incident. 11. Injured- Bhagwati Chandra (PW-2) had deposed that incident hap- pened about two years ago. There was an engagement ceremony at 9:00 pm at the house of Devkaran Dewar of our locality. Shiva, Bhima, Raj, Devkumar beat Dharmendra, Devkaran hit Dharmendra on the head near his eye with an iron dagger and Shiva also hit Dharmendra on the stomach with an iron stick. Accused Bhima hit Suraj in the eye with an iron rod, due to which his eye got injured and one of his eyes is damaged. Accused Raj beat Suraj on the head with a tangia and Devkumar hit Dharmendra on two-three places in the hand with a knife. Shiva Markam and Raj beat me on 7 both my legs with the handle of the dagger. She stated in her cross- examination that she denied that Dharmendra came to her house and told her that he was being assaulted, she voluntarily said that af- ter hearing the noise, she went to the scene and found Dharmendra. She went to Police Station along with Dharmendra and thereafter went to hospital for treatment. She know all the accused. When the witnesses were shown in the court and asked her whether the ac- cused were at the scene of the incident, witness pointed towards Chetan and Ugeshwar and said that she had not seen these people at the scene of the incident. There were 25-30 people at the scene of the incident and they had beaten her son. She further stated that she went to hospital along with Dharmendra. She correct to say that she reported injuries to both legs in her examination-in-chief, but she did not mention any injuries to the legs in her police statement or the report filed. 12. The witness (PW-9) Aarti Bai, who is wife of injured Suraj Devar and others are her in-laws, has deposed in her statement that she was not witness of the incident and her elder mother-in-law has not tell her the names of the perpetrators. She denied the statement that when she asked the incident, her elder mother-in-law namely Bhag- wati Bai told her that Devkaran Shiva, Devkumar, Bhima, Vikas, Raj together beat her with a stick and a rod. During the fight, Chetan and Tuleshwar alas Mundu also beat her. She denied giving such a statement. 13. Dr. Priyanka Toppo (PW-16) who medically examined the injured and gave her report, while giving detailed account of the injuries 8 sustained by the injured, said that those injuries were caused by the seized tools and while certifying the fact of giving query report of Ex- hibit P-57, Exhibit P-58, Exhibit P-59, Exhibit P-60 and Exhibit P-61 respectively, she has given the opinion that the injuries sustained by Suraj, Chhotu, Dharmendra were of serious nature and the stains on the clothes and weapons appeared to be human blood for which FSL test was advised. On the basis of the said advice, the investi- gating ofÏcer, Sub Inspector Pradeep Kanwar has given evidence of sending the said seized tools for chemical test, but as per the FSL report Exhibit P-43 presented in the case, it has been reported that no blood was found in the said tools seized from the accused. The injuries suffered by Chhotu, Dharmendra, and Suraj could have been caused by falling on a rocky surface. She also admitted that Suraj did not have a bone injury, but in her own statement clarified that the eye injury was serious. 14. Now, the question is, whether the trial Court is justified inconvicting the appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC? At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 307 of the IPC which states as under: - “307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life-convicts.—When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.” 15. The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an 9 offence under Section 307 of the IPC are: (i) that the death of a human being was attempted; (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as: (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufÏcient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excused for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. 16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and others reported in (1988) 4 SCC 551 has held that under Sec- tion 307 of the IPC what the court has to see is, whether the act irre- spective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the provision. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to consti- tute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of “attempt to murder”. Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the conse- quences that ensue. It has been further held that the nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used,motive for the crime, sever- ity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to deter- mine the intention. 17. Similarly, in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao and others, reported in (2003) 10 SCC 434 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that for the application of Section 307 of 10 the IPC, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained, the man- ner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 of the IPC. It has been 1 (1988) 4 SCC 5512 ( 2003) 10 SCC 434 observed by their Lordships in para 21 of the report as un- der: - “21. In offence under Section 307 all the ingredients of the offence of murder are present except the death of the victim. For the application of Section 307, it is not necessary that the injury capable of causing death should have been actually inflicted. The injuries sustained, the manner of assaults and the weapons used clearly make out a case of Section 307 IPC. But since sentence and fine have been maintained, alteration of conviction notwithstanding no modification of sentence need be made. 18. The Supreme Court in the matter of Parsuram Pandey and oth- ers v. State of Bihar reported in (2004) 13 SCC 189 has also held that to constitute an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, two ingre- dients of the offence must be present: (a) an intention of or knowl- edge relating to commission of murder; and (b) the doing of an act towards it. It has been held in paragraph 15 of the report as under:- “15. To constitute an offence under Section 307 two ingredients of the offence must be present: (a) an intention of or knowledge relating to commissio of murder; and (b) the doing of an act towards it. For the purpose of Section 307 what is material is the intention or the knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. The section clearly contemplates an act which is done with intention of causing death but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of intervening circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. In the absence of intention or knowledge which is the necessary ingredient of Section 307, there can be no offence “of attempt to murder”. Intent which is a state of mind cannot be proved by precise direct evidence, as a fact it can only be detected or inferred from other factors. " 19. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jage Ram and oth- ers v. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 11 SCC 366 has laid 11 down the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and held as under:- “12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder; and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given, etc. 14. Having regard to the weapon used for causing the head injuries to Sukhbir, nature of injures, situs of the injury and the severity of the blows, the courts below recorded concurrent findings convicting the second appellant under Section 307 IPC. In our considered view, the conviction of the second appellant Rajbir @ Raju under Section 307 IPC is unassailable.” 20. From assessment of the above, evidence brought on record, it ap- pears that some quarrel took place between the appellants and the injured. Thereafter, injured persons were assaulted by the appel- lants and their overt act causing injury to them. According to the medical report, it has been said that injured Dharmendra was injured on his forehead and head near the ear by a sharp object, injured Suraj was injured on his face and lips by a sharp object and his left eye was found to be burst and injured Chhotu Dewar was reported to have a lacerated wound on the left side of his stomach above the hip bone and it has been said that he was injured by a sharp object. In the medical report of the applicant injured Bhagbati Bai, it has also been said that she was injured on her right knee by a hard and 12 blunt object. The above has been proved by the medical witness in his testimony as well. Hence from evidence of injured witnesses and Doctor (PW-16), the appellants had an intention to cause injury to the injured which could be resulted into death, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the testimony of injured witnesses and to discard the medical evidence and other evidence brought by the prosecution. 21. Thus taking a cumulative note of the medical evidence collected by the prosecution; looking to the nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury has been inflicted, keeping in mind the re- port of the medical report, and taking into consideration the afore- said judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the findings recorded by the trial Court con- victing the accused/appellant under Section 147, 148, 323 and 307 r/w149 IPC are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and deserve to be and are hereby maintained. 22. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact that there is no previous enmity be- tween the appellants and the complainants and some of the wit- nesses have turned hostile, the maximum sentence of 5 years un- der section 307 r/w 149 of IPC imposed by the trial Court appears to excessively on the higher side and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice that the maximum sentence imposed on them i.e. 5 years. is reduced to rigorous im- prisonment for 3 years. However, fine imposed by trial Court is main- 13 tained. 23. The appellants are in jail and they shall serve out the sentence as modified above. 24. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly al- lowed. 25. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti