2025:CGHC:18707 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 356 of 2024 Shubham Sahu S/o Mahesh Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Dhobitalab, Bhimnagar, P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, and Akash Kundu, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri Karan Kumar Baharani, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 24.04.2025 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 12.01.2024 passed by the learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (CG), in Session Case- 403 of 2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 09.07.2021 between 9.30 to 10.30 pm, two accused persons conspired together to cause injuries to the victim- Bobby @ Mintu Thakur, and in furtherance thereof, they assaulted him by iron crow-bar near Bajrang Nagar, Bhimsen Bhawan Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.05.02 11:17:57 +0530 Cra 356 of 2024 2 Society, PS-Azad Chowk, Raipur, by which he received multiple injuries on his abdomen. It is also alleged that the accused persons were having previous dispute with the victim, and pressurized the victim to withdraw his complaint. At the time of assault made upon the victim, the sister of the victim (PW1), Hemlata Thakur witnessed the incident, and shouted for help. Then, the accused persons fled away from the spot. Sister of the victim called the people in the vicinity, and thereafter, victim has been taken to the Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur. PW1 has lodged report to the Police, on which offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC has been registered against the accused persons. Spot map Ex.P2 was prepared by the Police, and Ex.P3 was prepared by the Patwari. CC TV footage in the pen drive has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P6. CCTV footage identification Panchnama Ex.P7 has also been prepared in presence of the witnesses, the dying declaration of the victim Ex.P8 was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. Medical treatment papers of the victim have been seized from the hospital. Call detail report along with the Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act of mobile number- 8319392937 and 9111343664 were obtained by the Police from the service provider Company. The accused persons were arrested on 10.07.2021, and memorandum statement of accused/appellant Shubham Sahu Ex.P9 was recorded, based on which weapon of offence iron crow- bar has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P10. The said iron crow-bar has been sent for its query report to the treating doctor, who gave query Cra 356 of 2024 3 report and opined that the injuries found on the body of the victim could have been caused by the iron crow-bar. 3. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the CrPC and statement of Rahul Gadhewal under Section 164 of the CrPC have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the accused persons Shubham Sahu, and Vijay @ Aashu Panche before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, for the offence under Section 307 and 120B of the IPC. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, from where, it was transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 4. Learned trial court has framed charge against the accused persons for commission of offence under Section 307/34 and 120B of the IPC. The accused persons denied the charge framed against them and claimed trial. 5. In order to bring home the charge against the appellant, prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC has also been recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him, pleaded innocence, and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial court has acquitted the co-accused Vijay @ Aashu Panche from all the offences, whereas, present appellant has Cra 356 of 2024 4 been convicted for commission of offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that appellant is innocent, and has been falsely implicated in the offence. He would fairly submit that the appellant is not challenging his conviction for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. However, he is challenging the sentence awarded to the appellant, as the same is excessive. The incident occurred in a heat of passion, and it could not be proved by the prosecution that out of the two accused persons, who caused the fatal injuries upon the victim. On the same set of evidence, the co-accused Vijay @ Aashu Panche has been acquitted. The appellant is aged about 24 years at the time of incident and there is no past criminal antecedents against him. He already undergone about four years of his jail sentence, and looking to his age, and overall facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the fact that offence under Section 307 of the IPC does not provide any minimum sentence, his undergone period of jail sentence may be considered as sufficient sentence by enhancing the fine amount suitably. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes, and submitted that looking to the injuries of the victim, and the manner in which he was being assaulted by the appellant, he is not entitled for any leniency, and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced Cra 356 of 2024 5 the appellant for the alleged offence, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered rival submissions and gone through the record of the case. 10. Although the appellant is not challenging his conviction under Section 307, yet this Court from perusal of entire material produced by the prosecution, and the evidence of the victim PW2 Bobby @ Mintu Thakur, as well as the evidence of PW1 Hemlata Thakur, who is the eyewitness to the incident, found that learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC for causing attempt to murder of the victim. 11. Victim, PW2, has duly supported his case that on the date of incident, the appellant has threatened him to withdraw his previous complaint lodged against the appellant, and when he refused to do so, appellant assaulted him by iron crow-bar, by which he received injuries on his head and abdomen. In cross-examination, the defence could not elicit any contradiction which makes his evidence doubtful that, the victim was not assaulted by the appellant, but assaulted by someone else. Though, his Dying Declaration Ex.P8 was recorded during the investigation, but he survived and Ex.P8 can be used for corroboration and contradiction. The said incident was witnessed by PW1, sister of the victim. It has been supported by PW1, who initially stated that present appellant has assaulted the victim by iron crow bar. Though she Cra 356 of 2024 6 admitted in para-12 of her statement that she was not there on the spot at the time of incident, and she could not see the actual assault but in view of her entire evidence, she can be considered to be the eyewitness to the incident, as she herself lodged report to the Police, and it was she (PW2), who called the other people in the vicinity at the time of incident. 12. PW6 – Suman Thakur is the mother of the victim, and PW7 Purushottam Singh Thakur is brother of the victim, who have also supported the case of the prosecution case that the appellant has assaulted the victim by a iron crow-bar, but for minor omissions or contradictions, their evidences are corroborative, and supported with each other. The injuries found on the body of the victim were medically examined by PW12 Dr Sani Pasrija, at Mekahara Hospital, Raipur, who found the following injuries on his body, and gave report Ex.P21: 1) 1.5 x 1.5 cm lacerated wound present over right side of abdomen, 25cm from the clavicle in the clavicular line, 11.5 cm from the xiphisternum 2) 1 x 1 cm lacerated wound present over the left side of abdomen, 21 cm below the clavicle, 3 cm lateral to the midline. 13. In the matter of Jage Ram and others vs State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-12, and 14 of its judgment, has held thus: “12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that accused had attempted to Cra 356 of 2024 7 commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given etc. 14. Having regard to the weapon used for causing the head injuries to Sukhbir, nature of injures, situs of the injury and the severity of the blows, courts below recorded concurrent findings convicting the 2nd appellant under Section 307 IPC. In our considered view, the conviction of the second appellant Rajbir @ Raju under Section 307 IPC is unassailable.” 14. In query report, Ex.P22 the doctor has opined that the injuries found on the body of the victim are grievous in nature, and the death might have been possible if he would not be treated in time. Thus, from the evidence of victim, eyewitnesses, as well as by the evidence of the doctor, the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC has been found on the sound appreciation of the evidence available on record, which has been rightly done by the learned trial Court, and this court also has no hesitation to uphold the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. Cra 356 of 2024 8 15. Similarly, in the matter of Hari Mohan Mandal v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 12 SCC 220, the Hon’ble supreme Court has held in para 10 to 14 of its judgement that :- “10. In the factual scenario noted above, it has to be seen whether Section 307 IPC has application. The said provision reads at follows: "307. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned." To justify a conviction under this section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. 11. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature extent or character of the injury Cra 356 of 2024 9 or whether such injury is sufficient to actually causing death are really fac tors which are wholly irrelevant for adjudging the culpability under Section 307 IPC. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the sec lion. Therefore, it is not correct to act an accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely became the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt. 12. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, (1983) 2 SCC 28 and in R. Prakash v State of Karnataka (2004) 9 SCC 27. 13. In Sarju Prasad State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843, (1965) 1 Cri LJ 766 it was observed in para 6 that mere fact that the injury actually inflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not by itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of Section 307. 14. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstance that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not nature of the injury.” 16. With regard to the sentence part is concerned, while dealing with the said question in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under: “9. Western jurisdiction and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, Cra 356 of 2024 10 that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : 'If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.' 17. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and also considering the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Giasuddin (supra), this court is of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice that the sentence of the appellant can be reduced in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as well as in view of the tender age of the appellant. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, his sentence is reduced to RI for four years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, instead of RI for ten years with fine of Rs.1,000/-. 18. The fine amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid by the appellant within three months from today, failing which the appellant shall undergo further RI for three months. On being so deposited the fine amount by the Cra 356 of 2024 11 appellant, Rs.23,000/- be paid to the victim Bobby @ Mintu thakur (PW2) as compensation, as provided under Section 395 of the BNSS 2023. 19. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 10.07.2021, he is entitled for set off his undergone period during the trial, as well as during pendency of the appeal. 20. With this modification of the sentence, appeal is partly allowed. 21. Record of the trial court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma