1 2025:CGHC:59663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1189 of 2025 1 - Umend Verma S/o Vishram Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Rampura, Outpost Sambalpur, P.S. Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2 - Dilharan Verma S/o Chaitram Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Rampura, Outpost Sambalpur, P.S. Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh … Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, PL ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment On Board 09/12/2025 1. The appellants have filed the instant appeal under Section 415(2) of the BNSS, 2023 questioning the judgment of conviction and 2 order of sentence dated 07.05.2025 passed in Sessions Trial No.33/2024 by which the Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :- Conviction Sentence In Default Under Section 452 r/w 34 of IPC R.I. for 01-01 year and fine amount of Rs.500-500/- In default of payment of fine amount further S.I. for 03-03 months Under Section 294 r/w 34 of IPC R.I. for 03-03 months and fine amount of Rs.200- 200/- In default of payment of fine amount further S.I. for 15-15 days Under Section 506 Part-II r/w 34 of IPC R.I. for 01-01 year and fine amount of Rs.500-500/- In default of payment of fine amount further S.I. for 03-03 months Under Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC R.I. for 06-06 months and fine amount of Rs.200- 200/- In default of payment of fine amount further S.I. for 15-15 days Under Section 325 r/w 34 of IPC R.I. for 01-01 year and fine amount of Rs.500-500/- In default of payment of fine amount further S.I. for 03-03 months Under Section 436 r/w 34 of IPC R.I. for 05-05 years and fine amount of Rs.10,000-10,000/- In default of payment of fine amount further S.I. for 06-06 months 3 All sentences shall run concurrently 2. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal are that the applicant Shatruhan Das Manikpuri appeared before the Navagarh police station and gave a written statement. He lodged a report that the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rampura had asked him to make an announcement for organising a Gram Sabha on 27.06.2024. On 26.06.2024 at 6:30 pm, he was going from his house towards the colony to make the announcement when he met Dilharan Verma in front of his house along with Umendra Verma, who were abusing him over an old rivalry. He went towards the colony to make the announcement. When the applicant returned home at 8:30 pm, a fire was burning in the shed of his house, his wife Gautam Bai and son Laxmi Das were in different rooms of the house. He asked his wife, then his wife told him that Umed Verma and Dilharan Verma together entered the house forcibly by abusing her mother and sister in filthy language and threatening to kill her, saying that your husband has fought with us, Umed Verma beat her with a bamboo stick in his hand and Dilharan Verma beat her and her son Laxmi Das Manikpuri with his fists. He started beating you and said that he will set your house on fire through Urmand Verma. 3. He brought the accused and set the hay in the shed and cattle shed 4 of the house on fire with a matchstick. The fire started by Umand Verma destroyed bamboo poles, a barn, a motorcycle TV axle kept in the shed, two sacks of Tivra (Tivra) kept in the shed, 15 sacks of paddy, a bed, clothes, and firewood, resulting in a loss of approximately ₹80,000. His wife, Gautam Bai, suffered head injuries, wrist injuries, back injuries, and his son's head injuries due to the assault by the accused. 4. Based on the applicant's report, a zero-crime report was registered against the accused at the Sambalpur police station. Subsequently, a case was registered at the Navagarh police station under Sections 452, 294, 506, 323, 436, read with Section 34 of IPC, and an investigation was conducted. The spot of the incident was inspected. 5. After thorough investigation, when evidence of crime was found against the accused, they were arrested and charge sheet was presented against them in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bemetara, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh). 6. The prosecution and the prosecution argued on the charges under Sections 226 and 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon finding that sufficient grounds were found to prosecute the accused, charges were framed under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied the charges and 5 requested a trial. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that most the of the prosecution witnesses have not fully supported the allegations levelled against the appellants. Further more, most of the prosecution witnesses have been turned hostile. Therefore, the impugned conviction is not sustainable and liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. The learned Court below has failed to appreciate the contradictory statement of witnesses particularly the interested witnesses. He further submits that the learned court below has further failed to appreciate that the prosecution has failed to establish the case in its proper perspective, on the contrary looking to the whole prosecution story and also looking to contradictory statements of the interested witnesses, the appellants ought to be given benefit of doubt. He further submits that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the appellants have no criminal background and they never prosecuted in any case whatsoever and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is, therefore humbly prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and conviction dated 07/05/2025 passed in S.T. No.33/2024 acquitting the appellants from the charges, in the interest of justice. 6 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellants, supported the impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 10. Shatruhan Das (PW-1) has stated in his statement that the injured Gautam Bai is his wife and the injured Laxmi Das Manikpuri is his son. The incident occurred on June 26, 2024. At the behest of the village sarpanch, He had gone at 6.30 pm to announce the Gram Sabha. When he was returning after making the complaint, the accused attacked him and surrounded him with sticks and said that they will kill him and will burn you alive. Then he went to the police station Sambalpur and told them about the incident and asked them to write a report. 11. Dr. Kshitij Shukla (PW-4), at the time of incident, he was posted as Medical Officer in the CGC Nawagarh. On 26.06.2024, during the examination of Laxmidas Manikpuri, he found that the sides of head there was swelling above the right ear, which was due to a head injury. He advised to have a CT scan. There were no other injuries on the body. He had advised further investigation for this 7 injury. Therefore, no opinion was given regarding the nature of the injury. Upon examining Gautambai, he found that her head had a T-shaped tear above the ear, measuring 1 cm long and 3 cm horizontally. The tear was approximately 0.5 cm deep. Gautambai had swelling in both her wrists, with a tear between the first and second fingers on her right palm. A CT scan was recommended for the head injury and an X-ray was recommended for the wrist injury. He had advised further investigation into the injury of this victim, hence he did not give any opinion regarding the nature of the injury. 12. Thus, from the statement of the injured- Shatrughan Das (PW-1), Goutam Bai (PW-2), Laxmi Das (PW-3 ) and Dr. Kshitij Shukla (PW-4), it is crystal clear that it is the accused/appellants who hit on the victim with a hands, fists and stick as a result of which they suffered injuries. Medical evidence also goes to show that the multiple injuries were received by the injured persons. 13. Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, in considered opinion of this Court that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the trial Court. Thus, conviction of appellants is hereby affirmed/maintained. 8 14. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering that incident in question took place on 26.06.2024 and looking to the evidence available on the face of record, appellant No.1 has already undergone about 04 months and 14 days and appellant No.2 has already undergone about 05 months and 11 days of substantive sentence imposed by trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the maximum sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellants (RI for 05 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 appellants under Section 436 r/w Section 34 IPC is reduced from RI for 05 years to RI for 01 year and fine sentence under Section 436 r/w Section 34 IPC shall remain intact. However, conviction and sentence under the rest of the offences shall remain unaltered. Ordered accordingly. 15. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 16. 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 Vasant