1 2026:CGHC:7012 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 525 of 2017 Rohit Kumar Navrange S/o Shri Shakrajit Navrange, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Chhote Aamakoni, Police Station And Tahsil Sariya, District Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sariya, District Raigarh, Chhat- tisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 09/02/2026 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.2017, passed in Session Trial No. 05/2016, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh District Raigarh, (CG), whereby the appel- lant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sec- tions Sentenced to 326 of the IPC R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs. 700/- and, in default of payment fine, additional R.I. for 6 months Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.02.18 17:10:55 +0530 2 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20/08/2015, the complainant Sukhiram Naurange, son of Gopi Naurange, resident of Village Chhote Aamakoni, Police Station Sariya, appeared before the Police Outpost Baramkela and lodged a report to the effect that on 20/08/2015 at about 07:00 PM, a Jhula Rath festival was taking place in the village. At that time, under the tamarind tree of the locality, the complainant’s son Ramesh, along with villagers Sushil, Sashil, Anil, Uddhav and Ganesh, was standing there. At the same time, Rohit Naurange, a resident of the same village, came to the spot and assaulted the injured Ramesh by striking him with a knife on the backside of his head, thereby causing injuries. The injured Ramesh was admitted for treatment at Community Health Centre Baramkela. The incident was witnessed by Sushil, Anil, Uddhav, Ganesh and Sashil. On the basis of the said information, Roj- namcha Sanha No. 44 dated 20/08/2015 (Ex. P-7) was recorded at Po- lice Outpost Baramkela, and a requisition for medical examination of the injured (Ex. P-9) was prepared and sent to CHC Baramkela. Since the place of occurrence fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sariya, the matter was forwarded to the said police station for further action. The injured Ramesh Kumar Naurange was medically examined by the doctor at CHC Baramkela, and the medical report (Ex. P-9-A) was issued. After providing first aid, he was referred for further treat- ment to District Hospital Raigarh. An X-ray and CT scan of the head of the injured were conducted, and as per the CT scan report, the doctor opined that a depressed fracture of the skull had been caused to the in- jured Ramesh Kumar. On the basis of the aforesaid information, on 28/08/2015, a First Information Report (FIR) No. 115/15 was registered against the accused at Police Station Sariya for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which was reduced into writing as Ex. P-15, and the case was taken up for investigation. 3 4. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence avail- able on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted the appellant under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced the accused/appel- lant in the manner as described above of this judgment. Hence this ap- peal. 5. The appellant was in custody from 15.12.2015 to 02.03.2016 (2 months and 15 days). Thereafter he was in jail from 28.03.2017 to 05.05.2017 (1 month and 7 days) (total remained in jail 3 months and 22 days). 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, es- pecially regarding the location, timing and nature of the alleged act. He further submits that the conviction is primarily based on the sole testi- mony of the victim, without any corroborating evidence. The medical ev- idence does not establish any injury. Moreover, the FIR is silent on ma- terial facts which later appeared in deposition. No independent or eye- witness corroborates the prosecution story. The trial Court ought to have disbelieve the statement given by witnesses, as they are related witnesses. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are not reliable and charges are not proved by the prosecution. From the plain reading of the FIR, it gives the conclu- sion that the matter got converted to junk the personal grudge through police machinery by exercising the benefit of caste. The judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the appellant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Court below failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the com- plainant. 4 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sen- tence part thereof only. Further, learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant at present is aged about 47 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2015 and the appellant has already undergone more than three months and 22 days awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Learned counsel for appellant placed his re- liance upon the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the matters of Ajay Kumar Sarthi V. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 243 of 2022, Pritam Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 903 of 2015 and Yogendra Singh Markam Vs. State of Chhattis- garh in CRA No. 1760 of 2022, the Cor-ordinate Bench has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, and therefore, similar re- lief may be extended to the appellants herein as well. 8. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, would submit that the prose- cution has been able to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction of the appellant is well merited and needs no interfer- ence. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the recorded placed on record. 10.From the evidence of Ramesh Norange victim/injured (PW-11) it is ap- parent that the incident occurred on 20/08/2015 in his village Chhote Aamakoni, where a Jhula Rath festival was taking place. At that time, he along with Sushil, Sashil, Mohan, Manoj, Ganesh, Uddhav and oth- ers was watching the Jhula Rath. At about 07:00 PM, suddenly Rohit Kumar Naurange came there, caught hold of his hair, bent him down, and assaulted him three to four times on the backside of his head with a 5 knife-like sharp-edged weapon, as a result of which he became uncon- scious on the spot. When he regained consciousness, he found himself admitted in District Hospital Raigarh. He has further stated that the said incident was witnessed by his companions Sushil, Sashil, Manoj, Ud- dhav, Ganesh and Mohan. His treatment continued at Raigarh Hospital. He further deposed that had he not become unconscious, the accused would have killed him. During cross-examination, the witness admitted the suggestion put by the defence that none of the persons present at the spot made any attempt to stop or apprehend the accused, and he further admitted that he himself also did not attempt to catch hold of the accused.He further admitted that both his hands were empty and he was not holding any object, and also admitted that he did not try to pre- vent the accused from assaulting him with his hands. The witness fur- ther accepted the defence suggestion that on the date of the incident there was no conversation, quarrel, fight, or dispute between him and the accused near the tamarind tree. He also admitted that he fell on the ground, sustained injury, became unconscious, and was taken to Raigarh Hospital, and that he came to know about the incident only from the persons accompanying him at the hospital. He further admitted that prior to the incident there was no dispute between him and the ac- cused, and that the accused had never threatened to kill him. Voluntar- ily, the witness stated that there had been some dispute between his fa- ther and the accused regarding a tube-well in the village. He also admit- ted that no report regarding the said dispute was lodged by his father or by any other person at any police station or elsewhere. In further cross- examination, the witness denied the defence suggestion that he did not give any statement to the police. He admitted that Sushil, Sashil, Manoj, Uddhav, Ganesh and Mohan are his close relatives, but denied the suggestion that none of them had witnessed the incident or that they 6 gave statements to the police at the instance of his father. He also de- nied that due to a dispute between the accused and his father, he was falsely deposing against the accused before the Court. He further de- nied that the accused did not cause injury to him by a sharp iron weapon. However, he admitted that after he fell on the ground, no injury was caused to him by the accused. He also admitted that he did not see the accused fleeing from or leaving the place of occurrence. He further denied the suggestion that he had teased or molested the wife of the accused and, in order to save his reputation, he and his father falsely implicated the accused in the present case. 11.Ganesh Naurange (PW-3), who is an alleged eyewitness to the inci- dent, while supporting the version of the injured Ramesh Naurange, has stated in his examination-in-chief that on the date of the incident a Jhula festival was being held in their village and there was a large crowd present. When the accused Rohit Naurange assaulted the in- jured Ramesh Kumar Naurange, Ramesh raised an alarm. Upon hear- ing the cries, the witness turned around and saw that blood was oozing from Ramesh’s head. He further stated that the accused Rohit Nau- range was holding a knife-like object in his hand. Thereafter, the injured Ramesh was taken to the government hospital at Baramkela for treat- ment, namely Community Health Centre Baramkela. 12.Shasheel Norange (PW-7) who is the eye witness has supported the statement of injured/victim (PW-11). 13.Dr. Avadhesh Panigrahi (PW-13), in his examination-in-chief, has stated that on 20/08/2015, Constable Nirdosh Lakda, No. 755, of Police Outpost Baramkela, brought the injured Ramesh Naurange to the Com- munity Health Centre Baramkela for treatment at about 07:15 PM. As informed by the relatives of the injured, the patient had sustained a head injury. Upon examination, he found that the patient was conscious 7 and talking, his eyes were fully opening and closing, and on inquiry, it was found that the patient had neither lost consciousness nor had there been any bleeding from the ear or eyes, nor any vomiting, nor convul- sions. On examination of the head, the doctor found a lacerated wound measuring 7 × 1 cm, extending from the middle part of the scalp to- wards the lower back portion of the head, which was bleeding. He fur- ther opined that the said injury had been caused by a hard and blunt object. 14.Now, the question is, whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 326 of the IPC.? 15.On a careful scrutiny of the oral and medical evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution witnesses themselves do not consistently support the ingredients necessary to sustain a conviction under Section 326 IPC. The injured witness Ramesh Naurange (PW-11) alleged in his examination-in-chief that the appellant assaulted him repeatedly with a knife; however, in cross-examination he admitted that he became un- conscious and later came to know about certain aspects of the incident only through others. The eyewitness Ganesh Naurange (PW-3) did not actually witness the act of assault, as he stated that he turned around only after hearing the cries and merely saw blood oozing from the head of the injured and a knife-like object in the appellant’s hand. The complainant Sukhram Naurange (PW-6) materially improved the prosecution case by alleging multiple knife blows, which version is con- spicuously absent in the earliest report (Rojnamcha Sanha No. 44) as well as in his police statement. Such inconsistencies in the ocular evi- dence seriously impair the prosecution version regarding the manner and gravity of the assault. Most importantly, the medical evidence of PW-13 Dr. Avadhesh Panigrahi clearly records only a single lacer- ated injury caused by a hard and blunt object, and the doctor nowhere 8 opined that the injury was dangerous to life. The opinion that the injury could have been caused by the blunt side of a knife-like object further dilutes the allegation of use of a dangerous weapon in the manner con- templated under Section 326 IPC. 16.In the light of the aforesaid evidence, it is manifest that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant volun- tarily caused grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon so as to attract the rigours of Section 326 IPC. At best, the evidence establishes that the appellant inflicted a single blow by a weapon-like object, resulting in hurt which has not been proved to be grievous within the meaning of Section 320 IPC. Consequently, the act attributed to the appellant squarely falls within the ambit of Section 324 IPC, which deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC is unsustainable in law and deserves to be altered to one under Section 324 IPC. The appellant is accordingly liable to be convicted under Section 324 IPC instead of Section 326 IPC. 17.So far as the question of sentence is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the appellant has already undergone a total period of 3 months and 22 days of incarceration. The incident in question occurred in the year 2015, and the appellant has remained under the shadow of criminal proceedings for a considerable length of time. There is no material on record to suggest that the appellant has any prior criminal antecedents. Taking into consideration the nature of the injury proved, the manner of occurrence, the age of the appellant, the prolonged pendency of the trial and appeal, and the fact that the conviction has been altered from Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met by sentencing the appellant to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the sentence of 9 imprisonment is confined to the period already undergone by the appel- lant. 18.The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 19. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Jyoti