1 2025:CGHC:11876 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 463 of 200 8 • Shivbalak Yadav S/o Shri Bhagan Yadav aged about 25 years R/o Village Bhawarkhoh, P.S. Odgi, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : P.S. Odgi, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 10 / 03 /202 5 1. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 21.02.2025, the appellant is present in person before this Court. His presence be marked. 2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2008 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surajpur, Surguja (C.G.), in Session Trial No.379/2007 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.12 15:02:50 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 326 of IPC RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.200/-, in default thereof, 10 days additional RI. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 08.05.2007, complainant Devdatt was going to market Bhawarkhoh, in the meantime at about 6:00 pm, the present appellant came and abused him and committed assault by means of a wooden stick on account of which, the appellant sustained head injury. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, FIR was lodged and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 4. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 6 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2008, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-2 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that no case under Section 326 of the IPC can be made out against the appellant rather the maximum case is under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code as the injury caused to the injured Devdatt was caused by a hard and blunt object instead of a pointed and sharp object. Therefore, the conviction under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for the injury of 3 injured is not appropriate. He further submits that the appellant has already remained in jail for 2 months and 5 days. Therefore, the conviction under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code may be altered/converted to section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant may sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. In this case, Dr. S.N. Kujur (PW-1) has given a report (Exhibit P-1) after medically examining the injured Devdatt, stating that he has one injury as follows:- 1. a crushed injury, sized 4 inch length and ½ inch width to the extent of bone on middle of the head. 10.Doctor S.N. Kujur (PW-1) has opined that the above injury may likely have been caused by a heavy blunt object and he advised for an x-ray. Dr. Anil Pratap Singh (PW-8) gave a report (Exhibit P-6) on an x-ray examination of the injured on 28.05.2007, stating that there was a hairline fracture on the occipital bone of the head of the injured. Thus, it is clear that the injured had a grievous injury. However, it is not reflected from the MLC report and the doctors’ statement that the injury caused to him was caused by any pointed or sharp object. In the case, it is said that the attack was done with a wooden stick. The grievous injury found on the injured is the injury caused by a hard and blunt object. In the above situation, the conviction of the appellant is not made under Section 326 of the Indian 4 Penal Code so far as the case of the appellant falls within the ambit of Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 11.Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is altered/converted from Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 12.As regards the sentence part, keeping in view that the incident is of the year 2007 i.e. about 17 years ago. The appellant has already remained in jail for 2 months and 5 days. He has no previous criminal record. Only one hairline fracture was found on the head of the injured. Keeping in view all the above facts, it is not appropriate to send back the appellant to jail, therefore, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine of Rs. 200/- imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 3000/-. The imposed/enhanced fine amount by this Court today shall be payable by the appellant, failing which he shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 1 month. 13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 14.The appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437- A of the CrPC. 15. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu