1 2026:CGHC:8913 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 578 of 2009 1 - Sita Ram S/o Ram Charan Sahu, aged about 59 years, R/o Village- Chirchari, P.S. Gurur, District- Durg (C.G.). 2 - (Died and Deleted) Panchu Ram as per Honble Court Order Dated- 01- 04-2025. ... Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station : Gurur, District : Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from CIS Software.) For Appellants : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate. For State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Judgment on Board 19.02.2026 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Balod, District- Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 42/2008 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 Conviction Sentence U/S 325/34 of I.P.C. R.I. for 02 years and 06 months with fine amount of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 02 months each. (Fine amount has been deposited.) 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.06.2007 at about 7:00 a.m., the complainant, Chitrarekha Bai, resident of Village Chirchari, went to her agricultural field where she questioned accused Sitaram about cutting a tree from her land. Thereupon, Sitaram, along with his son Gasuram and son-in-law Panchuram, acting in furtherance of their common intention, abused her. When her husband Balwant intervened, the accused persons assaulted both Chitrarekha Bai and her husband with sticks and threatened to kill them. The complainant suffered injuries to her right foot, left knee, finger, and right wrist, whereas her husband also sustained injuries to his right leg, waist, and arm. Thereafter, the complainant Chitrarekha Bai lodged report against the accused persons at the Gurur Police Station and on the basis of the same, the police of Gurur Police Station registered a First Information Report vide Ex. P/01 under Crime No. 167/2007. The police arranged for Chitrarekha’s medical examination and obtained X-ray imaging of her injuries. During the course of the investigation, a spot map of the incident was prepared vide Ex. P/10. A bamboo stick and an acacia stick (babool stick) were recovered from the possession of the accused, Sitaram and Gasuram, respectively, and seizure memos were 3 prepared and marked as Exs P-2 and P-3. The seized sticks were subsequently sent to a doctor for examination, and the query reports were marked as Exs P-5 and P-8. Statements of all the witnesses were recorded during the investigation. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod (C.G.) and the case was committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Balod, District Durg (C.G.) for offence under Sections 294, 506-B, 323 and 307/34 of IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 07 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, no witness has been adduced in their defence. 5. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order of conviction and sentence given by the learned Trial Court is bad-in-law as well as facts on record. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the delay of 14 months and more than one month belated MLC and X-Ray report, thereafter the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants without any legal aspects. The complainant was not admitted in the government hospital anywhere, but the learned trial Court has believed on the prosecution story and convicted the accused persons. The 4 learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly. 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 2009, at that time the accused/appellant No. 1 was aged about 59 years, and appellant No. 2 died during the pendency of this appeal, so the appeal in respect of appellant No. 2 abates and it only rests for appellant No. 1, who is now aged more than 75 years; and he is suffering from various age related ailments, has remained in jail for 02 days, he is on bail since 2009 and has never misused the liberty while being on bail, as such in the interest of justice the appellant No. 1 may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present accused/appellant, so this appeal is being devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 9. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506-B, 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC against the accused persons and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused 5 persons of offence under Sections 294, 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC, but convicted the appellants/accused persons under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced them as described in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 10. Although, the learned counsel for the appellants is not contesting the case on merits, but looking to the statements of (PW/01) Chitrarekha Bai Sahu, (PW/02) Balwant Sahu, (PW/03) Ubhay Ram, (PW/04) Sitaram Sahu, (PW/05) Tribhuvan Lal Sahu and (PW/06) Dr. R.S. Bharadwaj, it is proved that the accused persons have assaulted the injured/complainant and her husband Balwant Sahu, where Balwant Sahu had sustained fracture. So, the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellants/accused persons under Sections 325/34 of IPC. As such, the conviction of the appellants awarded by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed. 11. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2007 and this appeal is pending since 2009. On the date of the incident, accused/appellant No. 1 was aged about 59 years, and appellant No. 2 died during the pendency of this appeal, so the appeal in respect of appellant No. 2 abates and it only rests for appellant No. 1, who is now aged more than 75 years; and he is suffering from various age related ailments, has remained in jail for 02 days, he is on bail since 2009 and has never misused the liberty while being on bail and no useful purpose will be served in again sending him to jail. This Court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be served if the present appellant is 6 sentenced to the period already undergone by him under Section 325/34 of IPC. However, fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 5,000/- (Total fine amount is enhanced Rs. 4,700/-) for offence under Section 325/34 of IPC. The fine amount already deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted accordingly. The appellant is directed to deposit the aforesaid fine amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment with the trial Court. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 12. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 325/34of IPC, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in the aforesaid Section. 13. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 14. 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 U. K. Raju