1 2026:CGHC:3837 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 27.11.2025 22.01.2026 -- 22.01.2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 27.11.2025 Judgment delivered on: 22.01.2026 CRA No. 9 of 2009 1. Dhanaram @ Ramkumar Satnami, S/o Asharam @ Gorelal Satnami, Aged about 21 years, 2. Maheshram, S/o Umendava Patel, Aged about 19 years, Both are R/o Village- Birgahni, P.S.- Janjgir, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellants : Ms. Anjana Banjare, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Abhijeet Sarkar, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. N.K. Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgment 1. The present appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.12.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 90/2008, whereby the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, with a further sentence of simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.03.2008 at about 9:00 p.m., the accused persons came to the house of the complainant/injured, Govardhan Satnami, situated at village Birghani, bringing liquor and chicken. After consuming food and liquor together, the accused asked the complainant to accompany them to the basti for singing Holi songs. While proceeding towards the basti, the accused demanded that the complainant bring liquor, which he refused. Thereupon, the accused abused the complainant in filthy language and threatened to kill him. The accused thereafter assaulted the complainant by means of a stick 3 and a sword, resulting in injuries on his face and right jaw. During the incident, accused Mahesh Patel also intentionally insulted the complainant by using caste-related abusive language. It is further alleged that the incident was witnessed by the complainant’s wife, Vimla Bai, who immediately informed Sukhsagar, a police personnel and Milan. Subsequently, Vimla Bai lodged a report at the concerned police station. Thereafter, the complainant also submitted a written complaint at Police Station Janjgir. Pursuant to the lodging of the report, the complainant was medically examined and treated at the Government Hospital, Janjgir and subsequently at SIMS, Bilaspur. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, the caste certificate of the complainant was seized and upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons, who were prosecuted for the alleged offences. The learned trial Court framed charges against appellant Maheshram Patel under Sections 294, 506(2), 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Charges under Sections 294, 506(2) and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC were framed against appellant Dhanaram @ Ramkumar Satnami. The appellants denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence, alleging false implication in the case. In their defence, the appellants examined one witness namely Ramgopal as D.W.-1. 4. The learned trial Court after meticulously appreciating and evaluating the entire oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the learned trial Court convicted the appellants for the offences as charged and awarded sentences to them in the manner detailed in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and is based on surmises and conjectures. The learned trial Court has gravely erred in convicting the appellants despite the fact that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient, inconsistent and does not inspire confidence. In criminal jurisprudence, the burden lies heavily upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, which 5 burden has not been discharged in the present case. The learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, who are admittedly close relatives and interested witnesses of the complainant. Their testimonies suffer from inherent bias and lack independent corroboration from any impartial or disinterested witness. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are riddled with material contradictions, omissions, and exaggerations on vital aspects of the case, which go to the root of the prosecution story. These inconsistencies create serious doubt about the veracity and credibility of the prosecution version. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are not supported by reliable evidence and, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside.. Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 17.12.2024 passed in CRA No. 1544 of 2019 (Rajkumar Kaivert v. State of Chhattisgarh) and the judgment dated 11.04.2025 passed in CRA No. 669 of 2022 (Premprasad Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh) as rendered by this Court. 6. Learned State counsel, opposing the appeal, submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir, is legal, proper and is based on a correct appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. It is contended that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It is thus argued 6 that no illegality or perversity has been committed by the learned trial Court in recording the conviction and sentence, and the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. From the record of the learned trial Court, it is evident that the charges were framed against appellant Maheshram Patela under Sections 294, 506(2), and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Charges under Sections 294, 506(2), and 325 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against appellant Dhanaram @ Ramkumar Satnami. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 294 and 506(2) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, while convicting them under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC. 9. Complainant Goverdhan (P.W.-1) deposed that on the date of the incident, both accused persons called him to sing Holi songs. After he accompanied them, they abused him in filthy language. Accused Mahesh allegedly assaulted him from behind with a club, and thereafter both accused assaulted him with hands and fists, resulting in the breaking of one of his teeth. On hearing his cries, his wife arrived at the spot. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged vide Ex.P/1. 7 10. Vimla Bai (P.W.-2), wife of the complainant, corroborated the testimony of Goverdhan (P.W.-1) and stated that both accused persons assaulted her husband, causing fracture of one tooth. 11.Milan (P.W.-3) stated that at the time of the incident he was sleeping when Sukhsagar informed him that the complainant had sustained injuries. He thereafter saw the injured complainant and his daughter-in-law informed him that the accused had assaulted Goverdhan. He then reported the matter to the Kotwar, Sarpanch, and Panchas. 12. Sukhsagar (P.W.-4) stated that on the date of the incident, Goverdhan came to his house in a serious condition with blood oozing from his mouth and unable to speak properly. Upon inquiry, the injured did not disclose anything. Since his father’s house was adjacent, he took him there. 13. Ghasiya Das (P.W.-5) stated that on the date of the incident, he saw the injuries sustained by Goverdhan. 14. Dr. R.D. Gupta (P.W.-10) deposed that on 20.03.2008, he medically examined the injured Goverdhan and found the following injuries:- “(i) Contusion over the right mandible with bleeding from the mouth, measuring 6 × 3 cm; (ii) Lacerated wound over the right occipital region, measuring 3 × 0.5 cm, extending up to skin depth; 8 (iii) Mobility of the upper third molar with a lacerated wound on the gum measuring 1.5 × 1 cm.” He advised X-ray examination of the right jaw and submitted his medical report vide Ex.P/10. 15. Dr. Neeraj Sende (P.W.-11) stated that the injured was referred from District Hospital, Janjgir to SIMS Hospital on 21.03.2008. The X-ray revealed fracture of the right jaw bone. The injured was discharged on 27.03.2008. The case-sheet is Ex.P/12, the junior doctor’s report is Ex.P/13 and the discharge summary is Ex.P/14. 16. Dr. Anil Pratap Singh (P.W.-9) stated that he conducted the X-ray examination and found a fracture on the right side of the mandible bone and issued his report vide Ex.P/9. 17. It is apparent from the written complaint (Ex.P/1) that the same was filed on 30.03.2008, whereas the incident occurred on 20.03.2008. 18. Vimla Bai (P.W.-2) lodged the FIR (Ex.P/3) on 20.03.2008, wherein allegations were made against Dhanaram Satnami and Dinesh Patel. After a delay of ten days, complainant Goverdhan (P.W.-1) filed a written complaint (Ex.P/1), alleging that his wife had inadvertently mentioned the name of Dinesh Patel instead of Mahesh Patel. Pursuant thereto, the police filed the charge-sheet against Maheshram and Dhanaram. 9 19. In her cross-examination, Vimla Bai (P.W.-2) admitted that although she was acquainted with the accused persons prior to the incident, she did not know their names. 20. From the FIR (Ex.P/3), it is clear that the name of Mahesh was not mentioned initially and was introduced only after ten days. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its case against accused Maheshram beyond reasonable doubt. However, on the basis of the consistent testimonies of the complainant and other witnesses, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused Dhanaram @ Ramkumar Satnami. 21. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted accused Dhanaram @ Ramkumar Satnami, whereas the finding recorded against accused Maheshram is unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeal insofar as it relates to Maheshram is allowed and he is acquitted of all charges. The conviction of Dhanaram @ Ramkumar Satnami is affirmed. 22. With regard to the sentence imposed under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC, the incident pertains to the year 2008, and the appeal has remained pending since then. The appellant was approximately 21 years of age at the time of the incident and is presently around 40 years old. He has already undergone incarceration for about four days. Considering the passage of time, the nature of the offence and the period already undergone, 10 this Court is of the opinion that the sentence already undergone would meet the ends of justice. 23. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by Dhanaram @ Ramkumar Satnami is partly allowed. While his conviction under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC is upheld, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain unaltered. 24. Accused Dhanaram @ Ramkumar Satnami is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 25. 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