1 2026:CGHC:1228 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 638 of 2016 1 - Amarsai S/o Late Adalsai Aged About 45 Years 2 - Shivprasad S/o Late Adalsai Aged About 48 Years 3 - Smt. Fulmati W/o Shivprasad Aged About 46 Years 4 - Smt. Bijeshwari W/o Amarsai Aged About 41 Years All R/o Village Charpara, Baikunthpur, Police Station Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya and Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocates For State/Respondent : Mr. Rishabh Chandra Singh Deo, Panel Lawyer ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 08/01/2026 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA 2 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22/04/2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District Korea, C.G. in S.T. No.26/2015, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : Appellant Shivprasad Conviction Sentence In Default U/S 325 IPC RI for 02 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 03 months U/S 307 IPC RI for 07 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 03 months U/S 506 (B) IPC RI for 02 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 03 months Appellant Amarsai U/S 325/34 IPC RI for 02 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 03 months U/S 307/34 IPC RI for 07 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 03 months 3 U/S 506 (B)/34 IPC RI for 02 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 03 months Appellant Smt. Fulamti U/S 325 /34 IPC RI for 02 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 03 months U/S 307/34 IPC RI for 07 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 03 months U/S 506 (B)/34 IPC RI for 02 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 03 months Appellant Smt. Bijeshwari U/S 325/34 IPC RI for 02 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 03 months U/S 307/34 IPC RI for 07 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 03 months U/S 506 (B)/34 IPC RI for 02 years and fine amount of Rs.500/- In default of payment of fine amount additional RI for 03 months 4 2. The prosecution story in brief is that one Vishnu Pratap Singh lodged a report that on 27.12.2014 that Lal Baba, Bablu, Bhuneshwar, Birendra, Jwala Singh and his brother Krishna etc. of the village had gone to Sajapani Beldhodaga for picnic, his brother Krishna had returned from the picnic. After returning, he told that during the picnic, Jwala Singh was threatening to kidnap his sister. Krishna said that he too had a sister and was not saying anything about her. Jwala and Amar Singh had beaten Krishna over this. On 28.12.2014, Vishnu Pratap Singh was standing near his house at around 11.00 am when, due to a picnic dispute, the accused - Amarsai, Shiv Prasad, Amarsai's wife, Shiv Prasad's wife - all four of them, in collusion, beat Vishnu Pratap Singh with hands, fists and sticks, while abusing him and threatening to kill him. Vishnu Pratap Singh suffered head injuries due to the beating, and his mother Manbasiya suffered injuries on her hand and other parts of the body. Bhuneshwar, Ballu, Birendra and others were present at the time of the incident. 3. On the basis of the above report a crime was registered and investigation was started and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused under sections 294, 506, 323, 325, 307/34 IPC, 1860 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur. 5 4. Prima facie, against all the accused persons in the case offence was found to be made out under Sections 294 read with Section 34, 506 (Part II), 325 read with Section 34 and under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and separate charges were framed. The same was narrated and explained to the accused to which they have denied. 5. On the basis of the evidence available in the case, the accused has been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973, the accused have been admitted in defence under Section 233 Cr.P.C., the accused have not recorded the statement of any witness in their defence. 6. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has recorded the evidence of medical witnesses Dr. Surendra Paikra (P.W.-1), Devendra Kaul (P.W.-2), injured Vishnupratap Singh (P.W.-3), Smt. Manbasiya (P.W.-4), Bablu alias Omprakash (P.W.-5), Patwari Manoj Singh (P.W.-6), Krishna Kumar (P.W.-7), Assistant Sub-Inspector M.R. Bhagat (P.W.-8), Samaylal (P.W.- 9), Sahadev Singh (P.W.-10), and Virendra Singh (P.W.-11), constable Dilip Bhagat (P.W.-12) and Assistant Sub-Inspector R.P. Sahu (P.W.-13). 7. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record convicted and sentenced the 6 present appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that they are not pressing this appeal on merits and confining the arguments to the quantum of sentence only. They further submit that the appellants stand convicted and sentenced to a maximum punishment of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment by the judgment dated 22.04.2016, pursuant to which all the appellants were taken into custody. During the pendency of the appeal, appellants no. 3 and 4 were enlarged on bail by this Court on 25.10.2016 after having undergone custody for a period of 187 days (approximately six months and five days). Appellants no. 1 and 2 were granted bail by this Court on 06.02.2017 after undergoing custody for 321 days (approximately ten months and nineteen days). He would next contend that even assuming the prosecution case at its highest, the facts and medical evidence on record do not disclose the requisite intention or knowledge necessary to attract Section 307 IPC, and at best make out an offence under Section 308 IPC. The nature of injuries, the manner of occurrence, and the surrounding circumstances do not establish an intention to commit murder. The appellants have thus already undergone a substantial and adequate period of incarceration for 7 an offence falling under Section 308 IPC, and have remained on bail thereafter without any misuse of liberty or adverse conduct. The appeal has also remained pending for a considerable length of time, causing prolonged mental and social hardship to the appellants. He would lastly contend that it is humbly prayed that this Court may be pleased to convert the conviction from Section 307 IPC to Section 308 IPC and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants. 9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellants, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 11. The question that arises for consideration is whether the acts attributed to the appellants disclose the requisite intention or knowledge to commit murder so as to sustain their conviction under Section 307 IPC, or whether the offence proved falls within the ambit of Section 308 IPC. 8 12. In order to answer the above question, the evidence of the injured witnesses, other prosecution witnesses, and the medical evidence has been examined. 13. Vishnu Pratap Singh (PW-3), an injured witness, stated that the incident occurred during a dispute and that he sustained injuries in the occurrence. His evidence shows that the incident took place suddenly. He has not stated that there was any prior planning or intention on the part of the appellants to cause his death. 14. Smt. Manvasiya (PW-4), also an injured witness, stated that she sustained injuries in the same incident. Her evidence indicates that the quarrel arose suddenly. She has not stated any fact suggesting that the appellants intended to cause death. 15. The evidence of both injured witnesses establishes the occurrence and participation of the appellants, but does not disclose any premeditation or deliberate attempt to commit murder. 16. PW-5 Bablu @ Omprakash, PW-7 Krishna Kumar, PW-9 Samaylal, and PW-11 Veerend Singh supported the prosecution version regarding the incident and the involvement of the appellants. However, none of these witnesses have stated that the appellants acted with the intention or knowledge to cause death. Their evidence shows 9 that the incident arose out of a sudden dispute. 17. The medical evidence has been proved by PW-1 Dr. Surendra Paikra, who examined both injured persons and proved the injury reports and X-ray reports. He opined that PW-3 Vishnu Pratap Singh sustained one incised wound on the middle part of the scalp measuring 8 cm × 0.5 cm, with bleeding present; swelling on the right hand; X-ray examination of the skull revealed no fracture of the skull. At the time of examination, the injured was conscious and oriented. His blood pressure was 110/70 and pulse 80 per minute. Further PW-4 Smt. Manvasiya was having swelling and pain on the right hand; one incised wound on the back side of the right hand measuring 1 cm × 1 cm, with bleeding present; X-ray examination revealed fracture of the upper part of the ulna bone. The injury was opined to be grievous in nature. The doctor has stated that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object. 18. From the medical evidence, it is clear that PW-3 Vishnu Pratap Singh sustained a single head injury without skull fracture. PW-3 Vishnu Pratap Singh remained conscious and stable at the time of examination and PW-4 Smt. Manvasiya sustained a grievous injury, but the injury was confined to the hand. No injury was found on any vital organ. 10 19. The cumulative evidence of the injured witnesses, other prosecution witnesses, and the medical evidence shows that the incident occurred suddenly during a dispute. There is no material to show prior enmity, preparation or pre-planning on the part of the appellants. There is also no evidence of repeated or targeted assault so as to indicate an intention to commit murder. The acts attributed to the appellants, when examined in the light of the nature of injuries and the manner of occurrence, do not establish the intention or knowledge required for an offence under Section 307 IPC. As such the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is altered to the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC. 20. In the result, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 325 IPC and 506-B IPC is maintained whereas the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 IPC is altered to the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC. 21. As regards the quantum of sentence, considering the nature of the incident, the absence of intention or knowledge to cause death, the fact that the appellants are first offenders having no previous criminal antecedents, that the occurrence was sudden, and further keeping in view that more than eleven years have elapsed since the date of occurrence, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be 11 met if the sentences imposed upon the appellants for all the aforesaid offences, namely Sections 308 IPC, 325 IPC and 506-B IPC, are confined to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court for each of the aforesaid offences is enhanced to Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo the default sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 22. Consequently, this appeal stands allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above. 23. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of 06 months in view of Section 437A of CrPC (now Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). 24. The lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge ashu