1 2025:CGHC:60954 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full - - 15.12.2025 16.12.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 960 of 2007 1 - Sultan Khan, S/o Fakruddin Khan, Aged about 27 years, R/o Prem Nagar Mova, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through: District Magistrate Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate through Legal Aid For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 2 15/12/2025 1. The present appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.09.2007 passed by the learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 338/2005, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.07.2005 at about 8:30 a.m., the accused Sultan Khan came to the residence of the complainant/injured Manoj Kumar Verma at Mowa, called him outside and took him along. The complainant accompanied the accused and was sitting near a temple. When the complainant expressed his intention to return home, the accused Sultan Khan, owing to an old enmity, suddenly took out a knife from his possession and made an attempt to commit his murder by inflicting a knife blow on his stomach. At the same time, the co-accused Hanif alias Hanis assaulted the complainant Manoj Kumar Verma with a stick. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant Manoj Kumar Verma, a Dehati Nalishi was registered vide Ex. 3 P/1, pursuant to which Police Station Pandri registered Crime No. 138/2005 for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, a spot map of the place of occurrence was prepared vide Ex.P/4 and the injured was sent for medical examination. The medical examination report is Ex.P/10. The complainant was admitted to Maikahara Hospital, Raipur, where he underwent abdominal surgery. Further, on the basis of the memorandum statement of accused Sultan Khan (Ex. P/5), the knife used in the commission of the offence was seized vide Ex.P/6 from his possession. Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. During investigation, it was revealed that the co- accused Hanif alias Hanis, who was present at the time of the incident, was untraceable. Accordingly, the charge-sheet mentioned that Hanif alias Hanis was absconding and that appropriate action would be taken against him upon his apprehension. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur. The learned trial Court framed charge under Section 307 of IPC against the appellant, to which appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 4 wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence alleging false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by him in defence. 4. The learned trial Court upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner detailed in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned trial Judge erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, which is insufficient, unreliable and does not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to establish any cogent motive or intention on the part of the appellant to commit an offence within the ambit of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case, inasmuch as PW-9 Dr. Kiran Agrawal, in her cross-examination, clearly stated that she could not say whether the injury was sufficient to cause death. Thus, the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not proved beyond doubt. It is further submitted that the prosecution case also suffers from lack of corroboration. Though PW-3 Dinesh Verma 5 was named in the FIR as a witness, he did not support the prosecution version during trial. He merely stated that he saw Manoj Verma near Shankar Chowk, which does not corroborate the prosecution story regarding the incident. Apart from the injured witness, there is no reliable independent corroboration. The testimony of Sarvesh Pandey (P.W.-4) is not supported by any contemporaneous record or reference in the FIR, and therefore his evidence ought not to have been relied upon. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not challenge the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court and confines the present appeal only to the quantum of sentence. It is contended that the incident in question pertains to the year 2005 and that the present appeal has remained pending since the year 2007. At the time of the incident, the appellant was about 27 years of age and is presently around 47 years old. It is further submitted that the appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of more than one year. In view of the appellant’s age, the prolonged pendency of the appeal and the period of sentence already undergone, it is humbly prayed that the sentence imposed upon the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone in the interest of justice. 6 6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on a proper and correct appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and, therefore, do not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. It is evident from the record of the learned trial Court that a charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant and upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Manoj Kumar Verma (P.W.-1) stated that the accused Sultan Khan is his neighbour. On the morning of the incident, he was sleeping in his house when the accused Sultan Khan came to him on a motorcycle and asked him to go out for a ride. Thereafter, the accused took him along to his house and confined him inside. After some time, the accused brought him out of the house, whereupon the friend of the accused Atiq assaulted him on the head with a stick, as a result of which he sustained a head injury and his head started bleeding. Thereafter, the accused Sultan Khan inflicted a knife blow on the right side of his chest. Subsequently, Sultan Khan dragged 7 him and threw him beneath the railway crossing into the drain situated below the railway track. From there, he managed to get up and went back to his house. At the time of the incident, Sarvesh and Rajkumar were present at the spot. The report lodged by him in respect of the incident is the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1). Thereafter, he was admitted to Maikahara Hospital Raipur for about 11- 12 days. 10. Rajkumar (P.W.-2) and Sarvesh Pandey (P.W.-4) supported the statements of complainant Manoj Kumar Verma (P.W.-1). 11. Dr. Kiran Agrawal (P.W.-9) medically examined the injured Manoj Kumar Verma on 14.07.2005 at about 9:30 a.m. and noted the following injuries:- Injury No. 1: A lacerated wound was present over the mid-region of the scalp, measuring approximately 5 cm × 1 cm, extending deep into the underlying soft tissues. Injury No. 2: A lacerated wound measuring approximately 2 cm × 1 cm, extending deep into the flesh, was found on the right side of the body. Injury No. 3: An incised wound was present on the right side of the chest, near the lower border of the third rib, measuring approximately 2 cm × 1 cm. For examination and assessment of the nature of injuries, the injured was referred to the Department of 8 Neurosurgery. She gave her examination report vide Ex.P/10 in this regard. 12. Dr. Manju Singh (P.W.-10) deposed that Manoj Kumar Verma was admitted to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital on 14.07.2015 at about 9:30 a.m. with a stab injury to the abdomen. The summary sheet of the said indoor patient is Ex. P/11.She further opined that in the absence of prompt medical intervention, the injuries were sufficient to endanger life and were serious in nature. 13. Upon a careful appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code does not call for any interference as the prosecution has duly established the occurrence of the incident, the participation of the appellant and the nature of injuries sustained by the injured Manoj Kumar Verma. 14. However, so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, it is evident that the incident pertains to the year 2005 and the present appeal has remained pending since 2007. At the time of the incident, the appellant was about 27 years of age and is now around 47 years old. The appellant has already undergone incarceration for a substantial period of more than one year. Keeping in view the prolonged pendency of the 9 appeal, the age of the appellant, the period of sentence already undergone, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby affirmed, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain unaltered. 16. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 17. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV