2026:CGHC:23892 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 498 of 2005 Reserved On : 08.05.2026 Delivered On: 15.06.2026 1- Nasir @ Nassu, Aged About 28 Years, S/o Abdul Majid, R/o Kasaipara, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Abdul Rahim @ Baba, Aged About 25 Years, S/o Abdul Majid, R/o Mathpara, Rajnandgaon 3. Mohd. Farukh Aged About 24 Years, S/o Mohd. Yunus, R/o Darogachal, Thana Basantpur, Rajnandgaon ... Appellants versus The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate appeared through Video Conferencing and Ms. Shruti Jha, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Judgment 1. The appellants have filed present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.05.2005 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 169/2004 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence U/s 324 of I.P.C. : R.I. for 1 year each and fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for three months. BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2026.06.15 16:47:08 +0530 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant has lodged FIR on 06.05.2004 against the accused/appellants before the Police Station Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon bearing Crime No. 97/2004 (Ex. P/23) for commission of offences under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 452 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act alleging that he is involved in disc business and on 06.05.2004 at about 12.30 pm., he was sitting with Sanjay Sharma in his office at Anupam Nagar, Rajnandgaon and at that time the accused namely Farukh Musalman, Nasir Muslaman, Uday Mishra and two other persons whom he knew by face, entered into the Office. Uday Mishra called him outside and as he reached near the office door, Nasir attacked him on the head by knife and Farukh assaulted in his stomach then he defended himself by his left hand and sustained deep injury above his left wrist. It has been further alleged that Uday Mishra has also attacked him with knife which has caused injury in middle finger of the right hand, thereafter two other boys who have come with them have also attacked him with knife causing a cut in rib causing cut and blood stain in T-shirt. It is also case of the prosecution that two other persons were standing outside the office at the time of incident in which one of them was Jeevat Panjwani. It is also case of the prosecution that he was carrying Rs. 20,000/- in his hand which Mr. Sanjay Sharma has given to him for depositing in the Bank and the said amount fell down from his hand during knife attack which one of the accused has snatched. 3. The complainant was sent for medical examination and after usual investigation and collecting the material by the prosecution, it has submitted charge-sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon who has committed the case to the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon which has been registered as Sessions Trial No. 169/2004 for trial in accordance with law. 4. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused has placed on record the documents (Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/26) and has examined as many as 16 witnesses namely Santosh Kumar (PW-01), Dr. Vinod Lohiya (PW-02), Dr. Y.K. Tiwari (PW-03), Lalit Kumar (PW-04), Ramanand Singh (PW-05), Anil Kumar (PW-06), N.B. Singh (PW-07), Chinmay Pathak (PW-08), Vinay Singh (PW-09), victim (PW-10), Sanjay Sharma (PW-11), Omprakash (PW-12), Santram Ambade (PW- 13), Balendra Kumar Mall (PW-14), Brajesh Singh (PW-15) and Nasir Bathi (PW-16). 5. The accused to prove their innocence have exhibited documents namely statement of Aditya Mishra (Ex. D/1), statement of Sanjay Sharma (Ex. D/2) and Photocopy of FIR (Ex. D/3) and has examined Himmat Singh (DW-01), Ashok Verma (DW-02), Raghuveer Singh Bhatia (DW-03) but not examined any witness. The appellants plead no guilty and have taken plea of false implication. They were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they have denied the incident. 6. The prosecution has sent the T-shirt, shoes, knife, hair, knife, knife, cap, cotton seized during the investigation for forensic analysis and it was found that except shocks in all the articles which were sent for forensic analysis, blood was found. The prosecution to prove the injuries caused to the victim has examined Dr. Vinod Lohiya (PW-02) who has narrated the injury which is as follows:- (i) A cut wound in left side of head, measuring 3x1/4x1/4 inch. (ii) A cut wound on the left palm between the thumb and the finger next to the thumb, measuring 4x1/4x1/4 inch. (iii) A cut wound at the base of the second finger of the right hand, measuring 1x1/4x1/4 inch. (iv) A cut wound on the right side of the back of the head measuring 1x1/4 inch. He further stated that the injuries are simple in nature which can be caused by the hard and sharp object and has also affirmed that the injury is within 06 hours of examination. 7. Dr. Y.K. Tiwari (PW-03) had medically examined the victim on 06.05.2004 wherein he has stated that Aditya Mishra was admitted in Male Surgical Ward of District Hospital, Rajnandgaon and has conducted X-Ray of head and left hand of Aditya wherein fracture was not found. 8. The victim (PW-10) in examination-in-chief has reiterated the facts narrated in the FIR and was cross-examined wherein in paragraph 13 he affirmed that the accused namely Farukh, Nasir, Dhannu, Baba attacked him and he prevented the attack but if the said information is not mentioned in examination-in-chief and police statement, then he cannot give any explanation to it. 9. Sanjay Sharma (PW-11) has been examined who has supported case of the prosecution and in the cross-examination he has stated that he has seen Nasir, Farukh and yellow shirt accused (Baba) but has not seen other accused. He has also stated that two or three persons caught hold the victim/injured person and when he was likely to reach there then one of the persons had shown knife to him and asked to go outside the place of incident, therefore, he came back and saw that three persons have assaulted Aditya Mishra. He has also stated that after attacking the injured person, the persons who have attacked the injured person, ran away while injured was climbing towards upstairs, he has informed about three persons whose names he has referred in the evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that the said witness was turned hostile on the evidence that he has not seen other persons, therefore, the prosecution has cross-examined and nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution on this point but in his entire cross-examination by the defense, this witness remained affirmed and nothing was brought on record by the defence to dislodge the fact of assault made by the appellants. 10. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material on record has recorded its finding that the charges under Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, but convicted the appellants for commission of offence under Section 324 of IPC for the period as detailed above. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. He would further submit that there is contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution as in the prosecution story it was stated that Uday Mishra had called the complainant and thereafter Nasir, Uday Mishra and two other persons had injured the complainant by knife but in the evidence of the complainant (PW-10) had stated that Nasir, Mohd. Farukh, Dhannu and Baba had injured him and on the other side Sanjay Sharma (PW-11) had not taken name of Dhannu. Thus, benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants. He would further submit that since seizure witnesses namely Santosh Kumar (PW-01), Lalit Kumar (PW-04), Chinmay Pathak (PW-08) and Vinay Singh (PW-09) have turned hostile and knife has also not been seized from them, therefore, the accused be acquitted by granting benefit of doubt as the prosecution is unable to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the finding of conviction suffers from perversity and illegality and would pray for allowing the appeal. Alternatively, it has been submitted that during pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 1/ Nasir remained in jail from 13.05.2004 to 20.05.2004 i.e. 08 days, appellant No. 2/Abdul Raheem remained in jail from 13.05.2004 to 20.05.2004 i.e. 08 days and appellant No. 3 /Farukh remained in jail from 14.05.2004 to 19.05.2004 i.e. 06 days, therefore, the sentence may kindly be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 13. Per contra, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment would submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that the prosecution witnesses namely injured person (victim), medical evidence have supported the case of the prosecution and the learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence and material on record has rightly convicted the accused. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting any interference by this Court, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. During pendency of the appeal, an application under Section 320 (2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed alleging that a compromise has been arrived at between the appellant and the wife of the victim alleging that without any pressure, they have settled their issue, therefore, they do not want to continue with proceeding and would pray for deciding the appeal in terms of the settlement arrived at between them. 15. This application was vehemently objected by the State and would submit that the manner in which the said offence has been committed is heinous. He would further submit that since the victim was not surviving now, therefore, by adopting the coercive method, they may have won over the wife of the deceased. Even otherwise, he would submit that looking to the graving of the offence, the application filed by the appellant for compounding the offence, deserves to be dismissed. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 17. Before deciding the appeal on merit, it is expedient for this Court to decide the application filed by the appellants for compounding of the offence. The record of the case would demonstrate that initially the FIR was lodged for commission of offence under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 452 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act and charges have been framed and after appreciation of the evidence, it has convicted the accused under Section 324 of the IPC. Looking to the gravity of offence and the manner in which the offence was committed, considering the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan [(2019) 5 SCC 688] wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has not appreciated the compounding of the heinous offence in view of settlement between the parties. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 15 & 16 as under:- “15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1 that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; 15.3. similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4. offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc. 16. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically and even when the investigation was under progress. Somehow, the accused managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of a settlement. The allegations are serious in nature. He used the fire arm also in commission of the offence. Therefore, the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused is not at all considered by the High Court and solely on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, the High Court has mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The High Court has also failed to note the antecedents of the accused.” 18. Considering the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as well as the gravity of offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed as three or four persons have assaulted the victim with knives, I am of the view that the application for compounding the offence, deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 19. Now coming to the merit of the case, from evidence of the injured (PW- 10), Sanjay Mishra (PW-11) who has categorically deposed about the involvement of the appellants in commission of the offence corroborate with the medical evidence regarding injury caused to the victim. As such, the conviction of the appellant on the basis of statement of injured person, is in accordance with the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Balu Sudam Khalde & another Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2023) 13 SCC 365] wherein it has been held in paragraph 26 as under:- “26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under- noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind: (a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. (f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.” 20. The finding of conviction of the appellants on the basis of eye witness (PW-11) whose credibility has not been diluted despite extensive cross- examination by the defence and eye witness holds high evidentiary value and cannot be rejected without major contradiction and can be accepted as its face value. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 has held as under: “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness should be of very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face valuewithout any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offenderguilty of the charge alleged.” 21. On the basis of above principle when this Court tests the version of PW-11, the eye witness, it is fortunate that the said witness has passed the test mentioned above and there is no variation in his version from statement made before the Court. There is no material variation regarding identification of accused as well as the manner in which the occurrence took place. Thus, he has fully supported the case of the prosecution. 22. Learned trial Court on the basis of medical evidence of doctor Vinod Lohiya (PW-2) & doctor Y.K. Tiwari (PW-3) recorded its finding regarding the injuries caused to the victim, as such even if seizure of knife is not proved by the prosecution, it does not weak the case of the prosecution that the victim was injured by the appellants by sharp edged weapon. The credibility of medical evidence has been examined by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Nagindra Bala Mitra Vs. Sunil Chandra Roy [AIR 1960 SC 706] wherein it has been held in paragraph 43 as under:- “……..the value of a medical witness is not merely a check upon the testimony of eyewitnesses; it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. If a person is shot, at close range, the marks of tatooing found by the medical witness would show that the range was small, quite apart from any other opinion of his. Similarly, fractures of bones, depth and size of the wounds would show the nature of the weapon used. It is wrong to say that it is only opinion evidence; it is often direct evidence of the facts found upon the victim's person.” 23. Nagindra Bala Mitra (supra) has been followed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Machindra Vs. Sajjan Galfa Rankhamb and others, reported (2017) 13 SCC 491. 24. Thus, the finding of the conviction under Section 324 of IPC by the learned trial Court, does not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting any interference by this Court. 25. Now this Court is examining the alternate submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that the incident took place on 06.05.2005 and more than 21 years have been lapsed, they have not misused the liberty granted to them and are attending the trial Court without any default, in such circumstances, they would pray for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by them. 26. Before adverting to the submissions, it is expedient for this Court to examine and consider what are the facts and circumstances, and the gravity of the offence to apply the principle of already undergone is being examined in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parameshwari Vs. The State of Tamilnadu and others, [2026 INSC 164] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined about mitigating factors and held in paragraphs 22 and 34 as under: “22. The objective of punishment is to create an effective deterrence so that the same crime/actions are prevented and mitigated in future. The consideration to be kept in mind while awarding punishment is to ensure that the punishment should not be too harsh, but at the same time, it should also not be too lenient so as to undermine its deterrent effect. 34. The misplaced understanding of various courts in treating compensation as a substitute of sentence is both a matter of concern and a practice which should be condemned. We have observed a trend amongst various High Courts wherein the sentences awarded to the accused persons by the Trial Court are reduced capriciously and mechanically, without any visible application of judicial mind. Considering the gravity of the situation as thus, we have culled out certain basic factors, which are to be kept in mind by the courts while dealing with imposition of sentence, in line with the view taken by this Court in the aforementioned cases. The said factors are enunciated as below: A. Proportionality: Adherence to the principle of “just deserts” ought to be the primary duty of the courts. There should be proportionality between the crime committed and the punishment awarded, keeping in consideration the gravity of the offence. B. Consideration to Facts and Circumstances: Due consideration must be given to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the allegations, evidence and the findings of the trial court. C. Impact on Society: While imposing sentences, the courts shall bear in mind that crimes essentially impair the social fabric of the society (of which the victim(s) is/are an indispensable part) and erodes public trust. The sentence should be adequate to maintain the public trust in law and administration, however, caution should also be taken, and the Court shall not be swayed by the outrage or emotions of the public and must decide the question independently. D. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: The courts, while deciding the sentence or modifying the sentence, must weigh the circumstances in which the crime was committed, and while doing so, the court must strike a fair balance between the aggravating and the mitigating factors.” 27. From the above stated legal position, it is quite vivid that this Court has to consider the gravity of the offence, the manner in which offence has been committed. From the facts it is quite vivid that the manner in which the offence has been committed by the appellants, the prayer for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by them, cannot be considered and accordingly, it is rejected. However, looking to the fact that the incident pertains to year 2005 and more than 21 years have already been lapsed, and the appellants are not having past criminal antecedents as prosecution is not able to place on record any criminal antecedents of the appellants, they have not misused the liberty of bail granted to them during the trial and even during pendency of the appeal, therefore, I am of the view that the sentence can be reduced to 02 months each for offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. 28. Consequently, the instant appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 29. From the record, it appears that the appellants are on bail and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The appellants are directed to surrender before the trial Court on 30th August, 2026 to serve out the remaining part of the sentence awarded by this Court after set off the period already undergone by them. If the appellants fail to surrender before the trial Court, the Police Authorities are directed to take action against them and send a compliance report to this Court. 30. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for compliance. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika