1 2025:CGHC:58852 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 515 of 2005 Dharamjeet, S/o. Jawaharlal Gond, Aged about 30 years, R/o. Saraswatipur, PS Bishrampur, Distt. Surguja (CG) ...Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through PS Bishrampur, Distt. Surguja (CG) ...Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Prbha Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 04/12/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.4.2005 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surajpur Distt. Surguja (CG) in Session Case No.65/2004, whereby the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, after holding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:- Sl. No. Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 01. 325 IPC RI for 07 years Rs.2,000/- RI for 1 ½ months BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.12.06 10:17:19 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 06.10.2003, when the appellant was abusing his mother in their house, the victim came there and intervened, whereupon the appellant assaulted him by means of iron rod/crowbar on his right knee, due to which, the victim sustained grievous injury and during treatment, he succumbed on 12.10.2003. FIR (Ex-P/19) was lodged on the same day against the appellant for the offence under Section 324 IPC. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), thereafter the case was transferred to Third Upper Sessions Judge, FTC, Surajpur. 3. The learned Third Upper Sessions Judge framed charges for the offence under Section 302 IPC against the appellant, who abjured the guilt and entered into trial. 4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. Examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, in which the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, claiming himself to be innocent and false implication. No defence witness has been examined by the appellant. 5. After completion of the trial, the learned Third Upper Sessions Judge has acquitted of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, instead there of, he was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC holding that there is no direct nexus between the cause of death of the victim/deceased and the injury caused by the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred instant appeal. 3 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the appellant does not want to press this appeal as regards to the conviction part of the impugned judgment, rather he would confine his argument only to the sentence part. He further submits that though the appellant assaulted the victim/deceased by means of iron rod, however, the blow was not on the vital part of the body, rather it was on his knee. He would further submits that cause of death of the deceased was due to septicaemia, therefore, the Upper Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 325 IPC, as on account of said blow of the appellant, the victim had sustained fracture on his right knee. He further submits that sentencing the appellant for 07 years is disproportionate to the offence, as the appellant remained in jail for more than 07 months and this case is pending since 2003, as such, the appellant has already suffered mental trauma in this period, therefore, he prays that the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment of conviction, as also the sentence part of the judgment. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the record of the Court below with utmost circumspection. 9. Though learned counsel for the appellant is not pressing instant appeal on the conviction part of the impugned judgment, but having considered the ocular and medical evidence and also considering the postmortem report, wherein cause of death is mentioned as septicaemia, therefore, holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 325 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC by the learned Upper Sessions Judge is affirmed. 4 10. So far as the sentence part is concerned, it is a case of single blow, that too not on vital part of the body of the victim. Though right tibia and fibula bones of the victim had fractured, the alleged incident occurred on trivial issue, the appellant remained in jail during trial from 09.10.2003 to 16.3.2004 and after impugned judgment dated 30.4.2005 to 13.7.2005 i.e. total 07 months 20 days. This case is pending since 2003, therefore, having considered aforesaid facts and other attending circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in further sending the appellant behind the bar, rather ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already served by him, i.e. from 09.10.2003 to 16.3.2004 and after impugned judgment dated 30.4.2005 to 13.7.2005. 11. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellant is maintained. Fine part is also maintained. But jail sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him, as mentioned above. 12. The appellant is said to be on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by him shall remain in operation for a period of 06 months from today, in view of the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with record of the concerned Court below be transmitted forthwith for compliance and needful, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini