1 2026:CGHC:22149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 613 of 2015 Puniram Joshi S/o Onkar Prasad Satnami, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Kapisda, P.S. Bamhnideeh, Champa, District Janjgir – Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through S.H.O. Police Station Bamhanidih, District Janjgir – Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent ACQA No. 74 of 2015 Onkar Prasad Joshi S/o Budhram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Kapisda, P.S. Champa District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O. Police Station Bamhaidih, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Karia @ Lekhram Koshle S/o Kashiram Koshle Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Kapisda Satnamipara Police Station Bamhanidih, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh , District : Janjgir-Champa 3 - Santosh Koshle S/o Kashiram Koshle Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kapisda, Satnamipara Police Station Bamhanidih, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh , District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 CRA No. 627 of 2015 1 - Karia Alias Lekhram Koshle S/o Kashiram Koshle Aged About 21 Years R/o Gram Kapishda Satnamipara Police Stastion Bamnidih District- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Santosh Koshle S/o Kashiram Koshle Aged About 28 Years R/o Gram Kapishda Satnamipara Police Station- Bamnidih, District- Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---Appellants Versus State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Bamnidih, District- Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh .... Respondent For Appellants : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate in CRA No. 613 of 2015 & in ACQA No. 74 of 2015, Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate in CRA No. 627 of 2015. For Respondents/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. and Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 12.05.2026 1. In CRA No. 613/2015, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2015 passed in Counter S.T. No. 127/2014 by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in the following manner with a direction to run both the jail sentences concurrently:- Conviction Sentence U/S 304-II of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine amount of Rs. 2000/-, in default thereof to suffer additional R.I. for 02 3 months . U/S 323 of IPC S.I. for 01 year 2. In CRA No. 627/2015, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2015 passed in Counter S.T. No. 126/2014 by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence U/S 323/34 of IPC S.I. for 06 months each and fine amount of Rs. 500 each, in default thereof to suffer additional S.I.. for 01 month each . 3. In ACQA No. 74 of 2017, preferred by the appellant Onkar Prakash Joshi, the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, by the impugned judgment, acquitted the accused Karia @ Lekhram Koshle and Santosh Koshle of the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506-B of the IPC, but convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 4. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case in CRA No. 613 of 2015, is that on the date of the incident i.e., 16.01.2014, during the festival of Cherchera, at about 6:00 p.m., an altercation took place near Dallu’s betel shop in village Kapisda between the accused/appellant Puniram and Labho @ Tajiram over the issue of providing liquor and ganja and the accused Puniram demanded liquor from the Labho @ Tajiram and assaulted him for the liquor. After this, accused Puniram left the spot and went home. Later, when Jitendra, Tajiram @ Labho and Shankar were 4 returning home together from Dallu's Betel shop, at around 6.30 pm, as soon as they reached the lane near Puniram's house, the accused Puniram threatened them and also abused them by using filthily language and out of rage he took out an iron sickle from his house and assaulted on the head of Tajiram, due to which Tajiram got injured on head and started bleeding profusely. When Jitendra and Shankar attempted to intervene, the accused Puniram also assaulted them with hands and fists, causing injuries. On the basis of the information lodged by the complainant- Jitendra, at Police Station- Bamhnidih, an FIR was registered and the matter was taken up for investigation and after completion of all the necessary formalities, as the injured Tajiram @ Labho died during treatment, prima facie on finding the accused to have committed the said crime, a charge-sheet was led before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of material contained in the charge-sheet, the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 294, 506-B, 323/34 and 302/34 of IPC. The appellant having abjured guilt, was subjected to trial. 5. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case in CRA No. 627 of 2015 & ACQA No. 74 of 2015, is that on the date of the incident i.e., 16.01.2014, during the festival of Cherchera, at about 7:00 p.m., Labho @ Tajiram said to the complainant- Puniram to give liquor and ganja, on which the complainant said that you drink of your money, then the accused Labho annoyed and abused him by using filthily language and assaulted him on the head and hand. Seeing this, Labho’s brothers Karia and Santosh began assaulting him. After which, the complainant ran away towards his home and narrated the entire incident to his 5 family members. At that very moment, Labho, Kariya, and Santosh approached his door. When his father, Onkar Prasad, opened the door and came out, the accused, along with his brothers Karia and Santosh assaulted his father. Accused- Labho assaulted Onkar Prasad on his head with a stick, resulting in a head injury. The accused left the spot, threatening to kill him, if he reported the incident. On the basis of the information lodged by the complainant- Puniram at Police Station- Bamhnidih, an FIR was registered and the matter was taken up for investigation and after completion of all the necessary formalities, a prima facie case having been found against the accused persons and a charge-sheet was led before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of material contained in the charge-sheet, the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 294, 506-B and 323/34 of IPC. The appellants having abjured guilt, were subjected to trial. 6. In order to establish the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. The statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the accused have been recorded, in which they denied the incriminating charges leveled against them and pleaded their innocence that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 613 of 2015 submits that the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is bad, perverse and against the law as well as facts of the case. The two co-accused persons, who were similarly situated, have been acquitted, whereas the present appellant has been convicted on the basis of the very same set of evidence. The appellant had lodged a report at about 8:00 6 p.m. on 16.01.2014 at the concerned police station, which was registered as Crime No. 10/2014, while the complainant lodged a separate report at about 8:30 p.m. on the same day, which came to be registered as Crime No. 11/2014. Thus, a counter-case bearing Sessions Case No. 126/2014 was also instituted before the competent Court and was decided vide judgment dated 30.04.2015, whereby two accused persons, namely Karia @ Lekhram Koshle and Santosh Koshle, were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, whereas Labho @ Tajiram died during the course of treatment. It has further been contended that the incident in question occurred in front of the appellant’s house, thereby indicating that the deceased and the injured persons were the aggressors. On this ground also, the impugned judgment deserve to be set aside. Alternatively, she submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant Puniram under Section 304-II and 323 of IPC as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, it is submitted that the incident occurred in the year 2014 and the present appeal has remained pending since 2015. The appellant is now over 30 years of age and has already undergone incarceration for a period of 6 years, 7 months and 28 days. It is further submitted that he did not misuse the liberty granted to him while on bail. In these circumstances, it is argued that no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7 In support of her contention, she relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of Chaitu and others vs. State of U.P. 1 8. Learned counsel for the appellants in CRA No.627 of 2015 submits that the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is bad, perverse and against the law as well as facts of the case. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients of Section 323 IPC and the conviction has been recorded on an erroneous appreciation of the material on record. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately concludes that the conviction of the appellants under Section 323/34 of the IPC, as recorded by the trial Court, is just and proper, a lenient view may be taken on the question of sentence. It is submitted that the appellants did not remain in jail during the trial and never misused the liberty granted to them while on bail. Considering that the incident pertains to the year 2014 and the appellants have faced criminal proceedings for a long period, it is prayed that in the interest of justice, instead of imposing custodial sentence, the fine amount may suitably be enhanced. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant in ACQA No. 74/2015 submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is bad in law and facts, hence the same is liable to be set aside. Learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence recorded in its true and correct perspective and the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the respondents No. 2 and 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution case is duly 1 (2014) 11 SCC 218 8 supported by four eye-witnesses, whose testimonies consistently establish that all the accused persons were abusing the appellant in front of his house. When the appellant objected to such conduct, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted him with lathis, bricks, and fist and leg blows, as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries on his head. The eye-witnesses have further categorically deposed that the accused persons extended threats to commit murder of the victims, thereby clearly attracting the offences under Sections 294 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code. Despite such clear, cogent, and corroborated evidence on record, the learned trial Court, without assigning any justifiable or legally sustainable reasons, has erroneously acquitted the accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 & 3 of the said offences. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of acquittal of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 10. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused in CRA No. 613/2015 and CRA No. 627/2015, but wrongly acquitted the other accused persons/appellants In CRA No. 627 of 2015 for offence under Sections 294 and 506- B of IPC. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. It is not disputed in all the three cases that on the date of the incident i.e. 16.01.2014, two counter-case were registered, which culminated 9 into Sessions Trial No. 126/2014 and Sessions Trial No. 127/2014 and judgments therein were delivered on 30.04.2015. 13. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that it framed charges under Sections 294, 506-B, 323/34 and 302/34 of IPC against the appellant Puniram and other co-accused persons namely Onkar Prasad and Ranjit in CRA No. 613 of 2015. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused persons of all the charges and convicted the present appellant Puniram for offence under Sections 304-II in place of 302/34 and 323 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned in the inaugural para of this judgment. 14. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that it framed charges under Sections 294, 506-B and 323/34 of IPC against the appellants No.1 Karia @ Lekhram Koshle and No. 2 Santosh Koshle in CRA No. 627 of 2015. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, learned trial Court while acquitting the appellants of offence under Sections 294 and 506-B of IPC, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in para 2 of this judgment. 15. PW-14 Dr. Anupam Kujur, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Labho @ Tajiram on 22.01.2024, found a single injury on the head and opined that the death was caused due to brain hemorrhage as a result of the head injury. He gave his report vide Ex. P/28. 16. PW-1 Karia, PW-2 Santosh, PW-4 Jitendra, PW-5 Shankar and PW-6 Ravi Kumar have consistently deposed that on the date of incident i.e., 16.01.2014, the appellant Puniram assaulted Labho @ Tajiram on the head with an iron sickle (darati). They have further stated that when 10 they tried to intervene, they were also assaulted by the accused person. 17. PW-3 Dr. S.L. Banjare examined the injured Labho @ Tajiram on the date of incident i.e., 16.01.2014 at about 9:00 am and found simple injuries and gave his reports vide Exs. P/5 and P/6. 18. PW-7 Dr. Siddharth Verma stated that he had examined the injured Labho @ Tajiram on 17.01.2014 and admitted him to the ICU for treatment. He further deposed that during the course of treatment, the injured died on 21.01.2014, and accordingly, he issued the death certificate vide Ex. P/11. He also responded to the prosecution’s query vide Ex. P/12, stating that the injured Tajiram was not in a condition to give any statement as he was on ventilator support. 19. Learned trial Court after minutely appreciating the statements of all the witnesses and all documents rightly acquitted the other co-accused persons of all the charges as there is no any cogent and clinching evidence proved by the prosecution against them and rightly convicted the appellant- Puniram for offence under Sections 304-II and 323 of IPC and also rightly convicted the appellants in CRA No. 627/2015 for offence under Sections 323/34 of IPC while acquitting them for offence under Sections 294 and 506-B of IPC. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka2 has held in para 36 as under:- “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal 2 (2024) AIR SC 1252 11 law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive-- inclusive of all vidence, oral and documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 21. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal proposition of as well as looking to the statements of witnesses, this Court is also of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. That apart, it is settled 12 position of law that the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal by the High Court is quite limited inasmuch as it has to only verify whether there is any material irregularity and/or illegality coupled with arbitrariness or perverseness in the impugned order or not. In the present cases, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, Acquittal Appeal No. 74 of 2015 filed by the appellant/complainant- Onkar Prasad Joshi against the appellants in CRA No. 627 of 2015 is devoid of any merits and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 22. As regards the sentence of appellant Puniram in CRA No. 613 of 2015, it is evident that the incident occurred in the year 2014 and the present criminal appeal has remained pending since 2015. The appellant is now more than 30 years of age and has already undergone incarceration for a period of 6 years 7 months and 28 days. It is also noteworthy that he did not misuse the liberty granted to him while on bail and has been facing the lis since a decade. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by sending him back to jail. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chaitru (supra), it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed upon him to the period already undergone. 23. So far as the appeal (CRA No. 627 of 2015) preferred by appellant No. 1 Karia @ Lekhram Koshle and appellant No. 2 Santosh Koshle is concerned, it is apparent that the learned trial Court has meticulously appreciated the evidence available on record, particularly the statements of Puniram (PW-1), Hirabai (PW-3), Akti Bai (PW-4) and Onkar (PW-9), along with the medical evidence of Dr. S. L. Banjare 13 (PW-5) and Dr. Amit Agrawal (PW-6). Upon due appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court rightly concluded that both the accused had assaulted Puniram and Onkar Prasad on the date of incident. The accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Sections 294 and 506-B of the IPC, however, they were rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of the IPC. Therefore, in view of the statements of the witnesses and the material available on record, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed. 24. As regards sentence of the appellants in CRA No. 627 of 2015, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2014 and criminal appeal is pending since 2015. The appellants are now aged more than 30 years; never misuse the liberty while being on bail, they are facing the lis since a decade. This Court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be served if their sentence under Section 323/34 of IPC by the Trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by them by enhancing fine amount of Rs. 500/- each to Rs. 1,000/- each with default sentence. 25. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, • Ex consequenti, the Acquittal Appeal No. 74 of 2015 filed by the appellant/complainant being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed. • The criminal appeal filed by the appellant Puniram in CRA No. 613 of 2015 is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for offence under Sections 304-II of IPC and 323 of IPC and the substantive jail sentence imposed thereunder by the learned trial Court is hereby reduced to the 14 period already undergone by him. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. • The criminal appeal filed by the appellants in CRA No. 627 of 2015 is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 323/34 of IPC, they are sentenced thereunder to the period already suffered by them. However, the fine amount of Rs. 500/- each imposed by the trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- each, which shall be payable within a period of 02 months from today or else, the appellants shall suffer additional R.I. for 03 months each The fine amount, if any, already deposited by them, shall be adjusted accordingly. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, in view of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today. 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