1 / 7 CGHC010113912012 2026:CGHC:28736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 329 of 2012 1 - Pitamber Nishad S/o Govind Ram , R/o Jhajharkera, P.S. Magarlod , Distt. Dhamtari C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Plice House Officer , P.S. Magarlod , Distt. Dhamtari C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Devendra Kumar Swarnkar on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocates For Respondent/State : Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment On Board 09.07.2026 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.02.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari District - Dhamtari (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 52/2021 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Conviction Sentence Fine Default Section 459 of 5 years Rs. 500/- R.I. for 2 months 2 / 7 IPC 2. The record of the case would show that during trial the appellant remained in incarceration from 01.11.2011 to the date of judgment i.e. 06.02.2012 and he was released on bail by this Court when this Court suspended the sentence on 20.06.2014. But, the appellant could not furnish the bail and bond as directed by this Court, therefore, the appellant has filed I.A. No. 4/2014 for extension of time for furnishing the surety bond. This Court vide order dated 17.10.2014 allowed the said application and the appellant was released after completion of 3 years and 19 days incarceration period. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Shayama Bai lodged Dehati Nalishi bearing Registration No. 0/2011 (Ex.P/1) before the Police Station Dhamtari alleging that on Wednesday, 26.10.2011, on the occasion of the Lakshmi Puja festival, husband and son of the victim had gone to see some cultural program organized at another village. When she was alone at home, at midnight, she felt someone had entered the house, she got up and saw that accused had entered the room with intention of committing theft. But when he saw her, he assaulted her with a sharp-edged weapon on her face and neck, causing injuries. When she tried to catch hold of him, he pressed her neck, due to which she became unconscious. Thereafter, he left her and fled away. After some time, her husband and son returned home and found her unconscious. They took her to the hospital and got her admitted. After regaining consciousness, she narrated the incident to her husband, son and 3 / 7 the villagers and registered Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1). On the basis of the Dehati Nalishi the Investing Officer conducted investigation. After usual investigation, FIR bearing Crime No. 147/2011 (Ex. P/12) for the offfence punishable under Section 459 of the IPC was registered against the appellant at Magarlod police station District - Dhamtari. The prosecution has submitted its final report before the concerning Judicial Magistrate First Class which has committed the case for trial in accordance with law to the learned Sessions Judge, Dhamtari. 4. The prosecution to prove its case has examined Shyama Bai (PW/1), Jagdish (PW/2), Vishnu Sahu (PW/3), Maniram Sinha (PW/4), Ashok Kumar (PW/5), Nand Kumar Netam (PW/6), Uma Bai Sahu (PW/7), Khamhan Lal Sahu (PW/8), Balram Sahu (PW/9), D. R. Sahu (PW/10), Dr. A. R. Thakur (PW/11), R.K. Dhruv (PW/12), Narsingh Dhruv (PW/13) and exhibited documents (Exhibit P/1 to P/13). The accused has not examined any witness but he has been examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he has taken plea of false implication. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has convicted the appellant vide the impugned judgment as above. Learned trial Court while convicting the appellant has recorded finding of guilt against him after considering the statement of the victim who has supported the case of the prosecution and also corroborated the contentions made in the Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P/1) and the FIR (Ex. P/12) by narrating the incident and also denying that her husband has assaulted her. The learned trial Court 4 / 7 has relied upon the evidence of the Doctor (PW/11) who has treated the victim. The doctor (PW/11) has stated in his evidence that the victim was examined by him vide its report (Ex. P/11) and on examination one incised wound admeasuring 3 cm x ½ cm x 1 cm was found on right side mendable near to chin. The injury was simple in nature. This witness has also examined the weapon used in commission of the offence and given his opinion (Ex. P/10A) according to which the injury can be caused by weapon. 6. Learned trial Court while relying upon the evidence of the victim and the doctor has recorded its finding in paragraph 13 that no evidence was brought on record to demonstrate that there was enmity between the family members of the victim and the appellant. It has also recorded its finding that the victim’s evidence was of sterling quality and it was duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Accordingly, it has convicted the appeal for the offence under Section 459 of IPC. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction, he has preferred present Criminal Appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no evidence brought on record regarding the commission of offence by the appellant and on perverse finding learned trial Court has convicted him. He would further submit that the victim has not supported the prosecution case as the injuries sustained by the victim were simple in nature, it cannot be said that it may cause death whereas he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 459 of the IPC and would pray for quashing of the impugned judgment. 5 / 7 8. He would further submit that the appellant has already remained in incarceration for 3 years and 19 days as detailed above, therefore, he would pray for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him. 9. On the other hand learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment of conviction would submit that learned trial Court after appreciation of the evidence of the victim (PW/1) and evidence of the Doctor (PW/11) has recorded the finding of guilt against the appellant. The seizure witness has turned hostile but it does not dilute the case of the prosecution. The victim remained unshaken during the extensive cross-examination by the appellant, therefore, the appellant has been convicted, as such, the finding of the learned trial Court in convicting the appellant, does not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. She would further submit that the appellant has been sentenced to undergo FI for 5 years which is just and proper. No sympathy can be given to the appellant as he has assaulted the victim with sharp edged weapon and caused injury. The sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is just and proper and would pray for rejecting even prayer for reducing the sentence already undergone by him. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. From the evidence of the victim (PW/1) it is quite vivid that she has categorically narrated the incident took place and the manner in which the accused has assaulted her. Further the evidence of the victim demonstrates that the accused entered in the house, 6 / 7 forcefully dashed her on bed several times, and also pressed her neck while causing injury. He has assaulted her with sharp edged weapon and received cut injury. She was admitted in hospital as she was unconscious and only after two days she became conscious. This witness was cross-examined by the accused but nothing has been brought on record. She has denied that there was any inter-se family dispute between the accused and them. She has also denied that her husband has assaulted her. The Doctor (PW/11) in his evidence has supported the case of the prosecution and stated that the victim might have received injury by the seized sickle. The said statement has not been diluted by the defence in extensive cross-examination. Learned trial Court relying the evidence of the victim (PW/1) and the Doctor (PW/11) recorded finding against the appellant. As such, the finding of the conviction does not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 12. However, looking to the length of the incarceration by the appellant and the appellant was aged about 22 years at the time of incident and incident has taken place in the year 2011, as such 15 years has been lapsed, he might have been settled in life and no other criminal antecedent has been reported against him, the appellant has remained in incarceration for 3 years and 19 days which is sufficient for the offence registered against him and there is no minimum sentence provided in Section 459 of IPC. Accordingly, the rigorous imprisonment of 5 years under Sections 459, IPC awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 13. Consequentially, the appeal is allowed in part. The sentence 7 / 7 awarded to the appellant is reduced to already undergone which is 3 years and 19 days. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. His bail bond and surety stand discharged, subject to the provisions of Section 480 of the BNSS, 2023. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Deshmukh KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2026.07.13 17:27:57 +0530