1 2025:CGHC:36946 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 337 of 2008 1 - Prabhu Lal, S/o Phool Singh Mahanand, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Nayapara, Mahasamund, Police Station- Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station- Mahasamund District- Mahasamud (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 29.07.2025 1. The appellant in this appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.01.2008 passed by 2 learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 66/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s. 324 of IPC R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month U/s. 25 Arms Act R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month U/s. 27 Arms Act R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the incident took place on 09-08-2007. Complainant- Suruj Bai, widow of Kanshiram Timar, aged about 41 years, who lives in ward No. 05, Naya-Para Mahasamund, and accused Prabhu Lal Manikpuri had been living in her house for the last five-six years. Four-five months before the incident, complainant had got the house vacated from the accused and, therefore he started living in some other place. The accused/appellant used to tell the people of the locality that he had kept Suruj Bai as his wife and wherever Prabhu Lal met the complainant, he used to say that he would keep her as his wife, but she used to refuse him. On 09-08-2007 at about 7:00 am, 3 complainant was going to answer the nature’s call. Accused Prabhu Lal met her near the field and again asked her to marry him but she refused. Thereafter, the accused assaulted her with a sword with an intention to kill her and as a result of which, the complainant sustained injuries on her left cheek and ear. The incident was witnessed by the witnesses. 3. Dehati Nalishi was registered vide Ex.P/1 and FIR was registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Medical examination of the complainant was done. Seizure was made. Spot map was prepared. Accused was arrested. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund and from there the case was committed to the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 307of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act against the appellant, to which he abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, the accused/appellant did not adduce any evidence in his defence. 5. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned 4 judgment convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she is not challenging the conviction part of the impugned judgment, however, she is confined her arguments to the sentence part thereof only. She further submits that the incident took place in the year 2007, this appeal is pending since 2008, at the time of incident, the appellant was aged about 45 years and as of now he is a senior citizen; appellant has already remained in jail for about 10 months. Therefore, considering his age, his undergone period may be considered to be sufficient sentence for the alleged offence. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court after minutely appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 324 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act. Therefore, this appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. Victim- Suruj Bai (P.W.-1) stated that on the date of incident, accused assaulted her by sword and due to said assault, she sustained injuries on her cheek and ear. 10. Daughter of complainant, Sushila Kumari Jalkshatri (P.W.-2) also supported the statement of complainant- Suruj Bai (P.W.-1). 5 11. Dr. Ghanshyam Chandrakar (P.W.-4) who medically examined the complainant, found one incised wound of size 8x2x3 cm on her left side of cheek and advised her for X-ray. In X-ray examination, he did not find any fracture in the body of the complainant. He gave his report vide Ex. P/2 in this regard and admitted his signature on the said report (Ex.P/2) from A to A part. 12. In view of above discussion, it proved that the accused assaulted the complainant/victim- Suruj Bai (P.W.-1) by sharp edged weapon and as a result of which, she sustained simple injuries. 13. As per prosecution, one sword was recovered from the spot as per seizure memo (Ex.P/9). Seizure witness- Ganesh (P.W.-8) stated that on the date of incident when he reached on the spot, he saw that the accused/appellant- Prabhulal was lying on the ground where police came and made him sit in the car. He further stated that he did not see any weapon on the spot. He only admitted his signature on seizure memo (Ex.P/9) from B to B part. Prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of prosecution. 14. Upon perusal of seizure memo (Ex.P/9), it is evident that the weapon was seized by the investigating officer D.S. Rajput (P.W.- 5) from the spot and not from the possession of the accused/appellant. As per seizure witness Ganesh (P.W.-8), the accused was lying on the ground at the place of incident and he did not see any weapon on the spot. Thus, the prosecution has 6 failed to prove this fact that the accused was in possession of deadly weapon. 15. In light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the findings of learned trial Court in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act are not sustainable. Therefore, the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act. 16. So far as the conviction under Section 324 of IPC are concerned, the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and thereby convicted the appellant as mentioned above. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence of witnesses, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC is affirmed. 17. As regards sentence under Section 324 of IPC, keeping in view the facts that the incident took place in the year 2007 and nearly 18 years have rolled by since then, appellant remained in jail for about 10 months, the appellant is in jail, hence taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded under Section 324 of IPC to the appellant by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 25, 27 of Arms Act. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC, the sentence 7 imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 19. In pursuance of the non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant, he is in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. 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