1 2025:CGHC:60955 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 15-12-2025 16-12-2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 764 of 2007 Jaswant Singh, S/o Devendra Singh, aged about 38 years, R/o Balsara, Thana Byas, District Amda (Punjab), Present Address – Kabir Nagar, House No.J/MIG, 176, Thana Amanaka, Raipur, CG. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur, CG. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Nand Ku. Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board (15th December, 2025) Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.8.2007 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in ST No. 2 359/2006 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code. SI for six months. Under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code. RI for three years, pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional SI for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 4.4.2006 at around 11 am while the prosecutrix was alone in the kitchen, the accused/appellant, who is her neighbour, came up to the window of the kitchen and asked her to talk to him promising a mobile phone and threatened to harm her if she refused. At about 5 pm when her brother Santosh Singh returned, she informed him about the incident, on which he went to the house of the accused and called him out. The accused emerged with a sword and attacked on the neck of the prosecutrix with intention to commit her murder. She defended herself with her left hand injuring her palm. When Santosh Singh intervened, the accused also attacked him. The said incident was witnessed by Pradeep, Umesh Singh, Sanjay Singh and Ravinder Singh. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. 3 03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 509, 307 of IPC and Section 25(1B) and 27 of the Arms Act against the accused which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined its witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, he did not examine any witness in defence. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. There is omission and contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. As per the complainant, the accused teased the prosecutrix by talking through the window but existence of window in the kitchen was not proved by the prosecution. In fact there was some quarrel between the parties and the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in this offence. She submits that when the appellant has been acquitted of the charges under the Arms Act and the injuries were not grievous, conviction of the appellant u/s 326 of IPC is not legally sustainable. The prosecution has also failed to prove any 4 motive with the appellant to commit this offence. Thus looking to the nature and quality of overall evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges by giving him benefit of doubt. Alternatively, she submits that if this Court confirms the conviction of the appellant, then considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2006, the age of the appellant and the fact that he has remained in jail for about 1 year and 8 months, his sentence u/s 326 of IPC may be reduced to the period already suffered by him. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that in view of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Sections 509, 307 of IPC and Sections 25(1B) & 27 of the Arms Act and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court while acquitting him of the charges u/s 5 307 of IPC and 25(1B) & 27 of the Arms Act, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 09. PW-4 prosecutrix states that on the date of incident while she was alone in the kitchen at about 11 am, the accused, who is her neighbour, came upto the window of the kitchen and asked her to talk to him and also offered her a mobile phone, which she refused. Being enraged, the accused threatened her of life. When in the evening her brother Santosh returned home, she informed him about the incident and thereafter he went to the house of the accused and called him out, the accused came out with a sword and attacked her which was defended by her with left hand as a result of which her left palm was cut. 10. PW-5 Santosh Kumar Singh, brother of the prosecutrix, supporting the statement of the prosecutrix, states that on the date of incident the accused assaulted the prosecutrix with sword as a result of which her left palm was cut. Thereafter, the accused also attacked him with sword and caused him injury on his palm. Both these witnesses remained firm in their cross-examination and the defence could not elicit anything to discredit their evidence to the above effect. 11. PW-8 Dr. Kedar Agrawal examined the prosecutrix and found incised wound and cut injury on her left palm and gave his report Ex.P/12 wherein he opined that the said injury was serious in nature. 6 12. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and found that there is nothing on record to show that the accused attempted to commit murder of the prosecutrix but it is proved that he caused grievous injury to her. It was also noticed that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under the Arms Act against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused/appellant of the charges under Sections 307 of IPC and Sections 25(1B) & 27 of the Arms Act, convicted him under Section 326 & 509 of IPC. These findings being based on proper appreciation of the overall evidence on record needs no interference by this Court. 13. As regards the sentence u/s 326 of IPC, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2006, the appeal is pending since 2007; at the time of incident the accused/appellant was 38 years and presently about 57 years; he has remained in jail for about one year and eight months, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced u/s 326 of IPC to the period already undergone by him while keeping the fine amount with default sentence imposed on him by the trial Court intact. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant u/s 326 & 509 of IPC and the sentence 7 imposed u/s 509 of IPC by the trial Court, his sentence u/s 326 of IPC is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed on him with default sentence by learned trial court shall remain intact. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.12.16 16:19:02 +0530