1 2026:CGHC:933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1067 of 2007 1 - Ravi Sarthi S/o Bahadur Sarthi Aged About 23 Years Occupation - Labourer, R/o Gharghoda, Uraonpara, Police Station - Gharghora, Distt. - Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - (Deleted) Kamlesh Lahrey S/o Ishwar Prasad Lahrey Aged About 20 Years Occupation - Agriculture, R/o Satnamipara, Gharghora, Police Station - Gharghora, Distt. - Raigarh (C.G.), (Deleted As Per Honble Court Order Dated 01.05.2025) 3 - Munchu Kujur S/o Nanaram Kujur Aged About 21 Years Occupation - Labourer, R/o Gharghoda, Uraonpara, Police Station - Gharghora, Distt. - Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - (Deleted) Samaru Sarthi S/o Shiv Prasad Sarthi Aged About 22 Years Occupation - Sweeper, R/o Uraonpara, Gharghora, Police Station - Gharghora, Distt. - Raigarh (C.G.), (Deleted As Per Honble Court Order Dated 01.05.2025) … Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Gharghora, Distt. - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, PL _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board 07.01.2026 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 30.10.2007 passed by Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 81/2007, wherein the said Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under:- For Appellants Conviction Sentence Under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC R.I. for 3 years each, with fine amount of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month each. Under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC R.I. for 1 year each Under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC R.I. for 06 months each. (All the sentences are directed to run concurrently) For Appellants No. 2 and 4 Conviction Sentence Under Section 25 of the Arms Act R.I. for 1 year each 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant- Dhobiram (PW-4), resident of Gharghodha, works as a farmer and his younger brother Bodhiram lives next to him. On 4-3-07, at about 9:45 a.m., it was the day of Holi festival, he heard the sound of a fight going on in the courtyard of his brother's house and when he came out, he saw that the accused Samaru, Kamlesh Lahare, Munchu Kujur and Ravi were assaulting Bodhiram and his wife Ghasneen with sword, sickle, axe and club (danda) and also were abusing and threatening them saying that they will kill them. When his wife Sonkunwar and he went to intervene, the accused attacked them too with said weapons with an intention to kill them on his head and his brother’s head, right wrist, back and also his sister-in-law Ghasneen, the said incident was 3 witnessed by the witnesses and they intervened between them to rescue. Based on the report of the complainant- Dhobiram (PW-4), the Station House Officer- Gharghoda, PW-13 H.P. Singh had lodged an F.I.R. vide Ex. P/11 and initiated an investigation. The injured- complainant- Dhobiram, Bodhiram and Ghasneen Bai were sent to Government Hospital, Gharghoda for treatment. Dr. Prem Bodalkar had conducted a medical examination and submitted M.L.C. reports (Ex. P/2, Ex. P/3 and Ex. P/4) and looking to the seriousness of the Bodhiram’s injuries, he was referred to the Government Hospital, Raigarh for treatment. Dr. Anil Kumar Tirki (PW-1) had admitted him in the hospital for the treatment. During the investigation, PW-13 H.P. Singh had prepared a spot map vide Ex. P/12 and also spot map was prepared by PW-3 Patwari Khemlal Dewangan vide Ex. P/9 and panchanama prepared vide Ex. P/10 before the witnesses. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, thereafter the matter was committed to the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raigarh (C.G.) and the accused persons/appellants were put to trial for the offences punishable under Sections 294 & 307 read with Section 34, Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act against the accused- Kamlesh Laharey and Samaru Sarthi. The accused having abjured guilt were subjected to trial. 3. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances 4 appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law, which is liable to be set aside. Learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants for the said offences as there is no material or evidence available on record to connect the appellants in the said offences. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate this fact that the version of the complainant has not supported and corroborated by the independent witnesses, hence his statement is not trustworthy and reliable. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that the incident took place in the year 2007, this appeal is pending since 2007, at the time of the incident, the appellants No. 1 and 3 were aged more than 40 years and they remained in jail for more than 01 months and they did not misuse the liberty while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 5. Ex adverso, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the accused persons. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the instant appeal 5 and appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. It is clear from the record of learned Trial Court that it framed charge against the accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 294 & 307 read with Section 34, Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act against the accused- Kamlesh and Samaru. Learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused persons of offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 and 294 of IPC, but convicted them for offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and also convicted the accused persons/appellant No. 2 and 4 for offence under Section 25 of Arms Act and sentenced as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. 8. It is clear from the statements of PW -4 complainant- Dhobhiram, PW-8 Bodhiram and PW-9 Ghasneen Bai that all the accused persons have abused and assaulted them with the sword, sickle, axe and club (danda), as a result of which, they had sustained various injuries on various parts of their bodies. 9. PW-6 Shanti Bai, PW-7 Firtu and PW-10 Shankar have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution declared them hostile and cross- examined, then all of them have admitted this suggestion that they heard some noise of fighting in the house of Bodhiram, however PW-6 Shanti Bai has stated that she saw the complainant- Dhobiram who came to his house after sustaining injuries. 6 10. PW-1 Dr. Anil Kumar Tirkey, who examined the injured Bodhiram stated that he was admitted in the hospital since 04.03.2007 to 13.03.2007. Bed head ticket is Ex. P/1. 11. PW-2 Dr. Prem Bodalkar, who examined the injured Dhobhiram on 04.03.2007 and gave his report vide Ex.P/2. He also examined the injured Bodhiram and Ghasneen Bai and gave his reports vide Ex. P/3 and Ex. P/4 respectively. The statements of all the injured persons are supported by medical evidence and statements of both doctors. Thus, learned trial court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence including the medical reports and medical evidence, rightly found that the accused persons assaulted the injured persons, as a result of which, they sustained injuries and thereby rightly acquitted the accused persons of offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 and 294 of IPC, but convicted them for offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC, Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and also convicted the accused persons/appellant No. 2 and 4 for offence under Section 25 of Arms Act and did not commit any illegality or infirmity in its findings as regards conviction of the accused persons/appellants No. 1 and 3. So, the conviction of the appellants No. 1 and 3 are hereby affirmed. 12. As regards the sentence of appellants No. 1 and 3, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2007 and nearly 18 years have rolled by since then, this appeal is also pending since 2007. It is clear in this case that during the pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 2- Kamlesh Lahrey and appellant No. 4- Samaru Sarthi died, therefore, the appeal against appellant Nos. 2 and 4 stands abated and this appeal only rests for appellants No. 1 and 3. The appellants No. 1 and 7 3 are now aged more than 40 years; they have remained in jail for more than 01 month and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail. This Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served, if the appellants No. 1 and 3 are sentenced for the aforesaid offences to the period already undergone by them. 13. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants No. 1 and 3 under the aforesaid sections, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 14. The appellants are reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 the appellants are also directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 15. 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 AMIT PATEL