1 2025:CGHC:59580 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 118 of 2005 Ashok Shukla, S/o. Vishnu Prasad Shukla, Aged about 32 years, R/o. Purana Rawan Bhatta, Mahasamund, Tah/PS/Distt. Mahasamund (CG) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. HS Ahluwalia, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Puriya, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 08/12/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2005 passed by Second Upper Sessions Judge. Mahasmund (CG) in Session Case No.272/2004, whereby the learned Second Upper 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. 452 IPC RI for 01 year Rs.1,000/- RI for 01 month 02. 323 IPC RI for 01 year Rs.1,000/- RI for 01 month All the substantive jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.12.09 16:21:08 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on account of land dispute, the appellant entered into Kabir Ashram, Mahasamund and caused injury to complainant Punit Ram (PW-1), who was working in the said Ashram, by means of iron rod with intention to kill him. It was also alleged that the appellant abused and threatened to kill the victim. Based on the above facts, FIR (Ex-P/1) for the offence under Sections 294, 506B, 452 and 323 IPC was lodged against the appellant. After usual investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Sections 294, 506B, 452, 323, 326 IPC was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, thereafter the case was transferred to Second Upper Sessions Judge, Mahasamund. 3. The learned Second Upper Sessions Judge framed charges for the offence under Sections 452, 307 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 06 witnesses and exhibited 05 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 Second Upper Sessions Judge has acquitted of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, instead there of, he was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 452 IPC, as has been mentioned in the opening paragraph. 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 the dispute occurred on trivial issue, injuries sustained to the victim was simple in nature. The appellant remained in jail from the date of his arrest, i.e. 24.6.2004 to 23.01.2005 till granting bail by this Court after filing of the instant appeal. Thus, he remained in jail for about 08 months, this appeal is pending since 2004, thereby the appellant has already suffered sufficient mental trauma. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence imposed upon the appellant 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 perusal of the deposition of the victim (PW-1) with regard to assault made by the appellant to him after entering into Kabir ashram by the appellant, which has also been supported by eyewitness Gurbhajan Singh (PW-2) and sustaining of injury has also been proved by Dr. RK Pardal (PW-5), who medically examined the victim, it is found that learned Upper Sessions Judge has not committed any mistake in holding the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 452 and 323 IPC as injury sustained to the victim has not been proved grievous as has been defined under Section 320 IPC. Hence, conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence are upheld. 4 10. So far as the sentence part is concerned, injury sustained to the victim was minor and there was property dispute between both the parties. The appellant remained in jail during trial from the date of his arrest dated 24.6.2004 till date of judgment date 03.02.2002, he was released on bail after suspension of his sentence by this Court vide Order dated 23.02.2005. Further the appeal is pending since 2004, thus, the appellant has not only served the jail sentence for about 08 months, rather he has also suffered mental trauma right from 2004 to till date. Hence, 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 24.6.2004 to 23.02.2005. 11. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellant for the offence under Sections 323 and 452 IPC is maintained. Fine part is also maintained. However, the 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