1 CGHC010006382011 2026:CGHC:30268 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 598 of 2011  Munna @ Vishwanath Kewat Aged About 56 Years S/o Tiharu Ram Kewat, R/o Village Khargahani, P.S.-Shivrinarayan, Distt.-Janjgir- Champa, C.G. ... Appellant. versus  State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa (CG). ... Respondent(s) For appellant. : Mr. Shobhit Kostha, Advocate. For Respondent/State. : Mr. Shailesh Puriya, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 16/07/2026 1. In pursuance of the bailable warrant issued by this Court for securing his presence before this Court, the appellant along with his counsel is present before this Court. 2. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2-8-2011 passed by the District 2 and Sessions Judge, District Janjgir Champa C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2011, wherein the said Court convicted the appellant under Section 326/34 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for three months. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim lodged FIR (Ex. P/1) bearing Crime No. 228 of 2010 at Police Station Shivrinarayan, Janjgir Champa on 27-12-2010 against the appellant and other co- accused Pappu @ Omprakash who was juvenile at the relevant time, alleging that on 27-12-201 at 8 -9 ‘ clock, in the morning when he was going on bullock cart along with his younger brother namely Ranjit Singh and sister Kumari Kiran for collecting paddy crop from the field of Krishna Kumar Kewat, at that time appellant raised an objection with regard to partition of property and he assaulted the complainant with stick on his right shoulder and thereafter, Pappu @ Omprakash Kewat son of appellant Munna Kewat who has reached the place of incident, assaulted him by Tangia on his head and also threatened that he will kill the victim. As such, due to injuries, the victim became unconscious and thereafter the appellant and his son ran away from the spot. On the basis of FIR, a criminal case under Section 307, 34 and 324 of IPC was registered against the appellant and his son. 4. The prosecution after completion of investigation and collection of material has submitted the charge sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa for trial in accordance with law. 3 5. The memorandum statement of the accused Munna under Section 27of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.P/3) was recorded and vide Seizure memo (Ex. P/4), the stick which was used in commission of offence was also seized from the appellant and also blood stained clothes of the victim were vide (Ex. P/6). The victim was examined by Dr. Anvita Dhruw (PW/7) who has given her report (Ex. P/18). 6. In order to bring home guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses namely - Ramsingh Kanwar, Krishna Kumar Kewant (PW/2), Chhotu Kewat (PW/3), Ramadhar Chouhan (PW/4), Dr. R. Jeetpure (PW/5), R.K. Shukla, (PW/6) Inspector, Doctor Anvita Dhruw (PW/7), who is Medical officer, Patwari, Govnid Kanwar (PW/8) and Santosh Uddesh (PW/9) and also exhibited documents from Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/20.. 7. Statements of accused/appellant have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he has denied the allegations leveled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication. The accused abjured his guilt and to prove his innocence, the appellant in his support has not examined any witness and has not exhibited any document. 8. Though the learned trial Court has framed the charges for commission of offence under Section 307, 34 and 324, but learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, vide its judgment dated 2-8-2011 has held that appellant has committed the offence under Section 326/34 of I.P.C. and thereby sentenced him for the offence as mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction & order of sentence, instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the 4 appellant challenging the same. This Court while admitting the instant appeal on 11-8-2011 granted bail to the appellant. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that learned trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant on the basis of evidence as there are number of omissions and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses recorded before the Court and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. 10. He would further submit that there is serious lacuna in the prosecution case and the seizure of various articles have not been proved in accordance with law. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has wrongly applied the provisions of Section 326 of IPC against the appellant as the injury caused to the appellant is not of grievous in nature, therefore, the conviction for commission of offence under Section 326 is illegal. He would further submit that as per the opinion of the doctor there was swelling in the right hand of the victim which is of simple injury. He would further submit that as per the evidence of victim itself the injury on head was caused by the other-accused who was juvenile, as such, the accused cannot be held liable for commission of offence for which he has not committed with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. Thus, he would pray for allowing the appeal as the impugned judgment suffers from perversity and illegality. He would further submit that at the best, the appellant can be convicted for commission of offense offence under Section 324 of IPC, as such he would pray for imposition of lenient sentence. 5 11. He would further submit that the parties are relatives and they have already settled their inter se dispute, the appellant was arrested on 27.12-2010 and he remained in incarceration from 28-12-2010 to 25.01.2011 i.e. 30 days. He would further submit that the incident took place in the year 2010 and the appeal is pending since 2011, now the appellant is more than 55 years; he has not misused the liberty while bail granted by the trial Court or by this Court, thus, he would pray for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him. 12. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, as such, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 14. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the point emerged for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and finding of the conviction is liable to be interfered by this Court or the prayer of the appellant for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him can be considered in view of the facts and circumstances of the case? 15. To appreciate the point emerged for determination, it is expedient for this Court to go through the evidence brought on record by the 6 prosecution. 16. The victim Krishna Kumar Kewat was examined as PW/2 before the trial Court who in examination-in chief has reiterated the allegations made in the evidence wherein he has stated that the appellant has assaulted him on his right shoulder and thereafter other co-accused assaulted him with Tangia on his head causing bleeding and after that he fell down. This witness was extensively cross examined, by the defence, but it has not rebutted the evidence in the extensive cross- examination. This statement of victim was duly supported by the medical evidence of Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW-7) who has affirmed the injury caused to the victim. 17. Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW-7) who has examined the victim has stated that the victim was in unconscious stage, she found one wound in the size of 7 x 5 cm on the right parietal region of the head of the injured, she advised for x-ray and thereafter she referred the patient for further examination and she analyzed the tangia and gave her opinion that with the aid of Tangia the injury can be caused to the victim. Thus, she has fully supported the case of the prosecution. 18. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence, material on record, particularly appreciating the evidence of the victim and also duly corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW/7) has recorded its finding that all of a sudden provocation, the accused assaulted the victim and caused injuries, though the charges levelled him under Section 307 of 34 of IPC, has convicted the appellant and other co-accused under Section 326/34 of IPC. 7 19. From the aforesaid evidence, it is quite vivid that the victim has got injury and presence of the accused at the place of occurrence is not disputed by the appellant. The injured person has been cross-examined by the accused extensively by accused before the trial Court but he is unable to rebut the evidence regarding his involvement in the commission of offence. Considering the well settled position of law that an accused can be convicted on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim, provided the Court finds the testimony to be credible, trustworthy and of sterling quality. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the evidentiary value of injured witness in case of Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs State of Maharashtra {2023 (13) SCC 365} wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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. From the medical evidence as well as ocular testimony of the victim, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the accused has caused injury to the victim. This evidence is also duly corroborated 8 by the medical evidence of Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW/7) who has categorically analysed the injury caused to the victim. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that so far as judgment of conviction passed against the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 326/34 of IPC cannot be found faulty or suffers from perversity or illegality any warranting any interference, therefore, the appeal to that extent is liable to be dismissed. 21. However, this Court is considering the alternate submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that during trial, the appellant remained in incarceration 30 days, and he has already deposited the fine amount of Rs.5000/-. He would further submit that the incident took place in the year 2010 and more than 16 years have been lapsed, now the appellant is aged about 55 years and has settled in life and also considering the fact that on account of sudden provocation the offence has been committed. Also considering the fact that the grievous injury was caused by the other co-accused who was juvenile at the relevant time, therefore, the appellant is able to meet out mitigating circumstances for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him. 23. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the sentence imposed by the trial Court deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.5000/- to Rs. 15000/- to be payable to the victim within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which he shall undergo the sentence as it has been ordered by the learned trial Court. It is also directed that fine 9 amount deposited earlier shall be adjusted towards the fine amount which has to be payable by the appellant. The enhanced fine amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited before the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, thereafter the trial Court will issue a notice to the victim for withdrawal of the same. 24. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellant is reported to be on bail and his bail bonds shall continue for further period of six months in view of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 25. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- SdSd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2026.07.21 15:13:00 +0530