1 CGHC010293502018 2026:CGHC:41622 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1498 of 2018 • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Koni, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus • Kanshiram Kahar S/o Late Rajaram Kahar Aged About 55 Years R/o Damadpara, Lokhandi, Police Station- Koni District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Supriya Upasne, Government Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandrakaditya Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 24.09.2026 1. The present appeal filed by the State under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 325 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.10.2017, the complainant Rajkumar Kenwat (PW-10) lodged a report (Ex.P-8) to the police that at about 8:30 a.m. he was being informed by his nephew Virendra that in the morning when his father had gone towards river, the respondent/accused assaulted him by which he received injuries on his legs and his head, he rushed to the place of incident and saw his father lying in injured condition pooled with blood at vegetable badi of VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.09.26 17:14:59 +0530 2 one Kartik Patel. One Dayaram Kenwat was also present there, who informed him that the respondent/accused assaulted his father by lathi. FIR for the offence under Section 307 of IPC was registered against the respondent/accused. The injured Govindram Kenwat was sent to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, where he was medically examined by (PW-11) Dr. Sunil Pendro, who gave his MLC report (Ex.P-10). While medically examined the injured, the doctor has noticed lacerated wound with abrasion on right occipital region with mild swelling and puncture wound on left leg with fracture of bone. Injuries found on the body of the injured was grievous in nature as has been reported by the radiological department where fracture of tibia fibula bone was found. Spot map (Ex.P-2) was prepared by Patwari. The X-ray report of the injured Govindram (PW-3) was obtained, in which fracture of left tibia fibula bone was found. The injured remained hospitalized from 10.10.2017 to 14.11.2017. Another spot map (Ex.P-9) was prepared by police. The respondent/accused was arrested on 30.10.2017 and his memorandum statement (Ex.P-6) was recorded, based on his memorandum statement, one club (stick) has been seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-7). The club seized from the respondent/accused was sent for its query report. The doctor has opined that the injury found on the body of the injured could have been caused by the said lathi. When injured was being taken to the hospital, the police memo (Ex.P- 21) was also sent to the City Kotwali Police, Bilaspur. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against the respondent/accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilapur for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Case was 3 committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur from where it has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 3. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The respondent/accused denied the charge and claimed trial. In order to prove the charge against the accused prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C of the accused have also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances that appears against him and pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the said offences. 4. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and instead of Section 307 of IPC and sentenced for the period already undergone by him with fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulation, hence this appeal by the State for enhancement of the sentence. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State would submits that the learned trial Court has erred in sentencing the respondent/accused. Looking to the grievousness of the injuries that injured Govindram received fracture of his left tibia fibula bone and he remained hospitalized from more then a month, looking to the gravity of the offence that initially the respondent/accused tried to assault on head and ultimately assaulted on the leg of the injured by which he received fracture injury stringent sentence should be awarded to the accused. He would further submit that though the intention coupled with some overact is required for the offence under Section 307 of IPC however, despite availability of evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted the respondent/accused under Section 325 of the IPC 4 instead of Section 307 of IPC, which is liable to be modified and the sentence awarded to the respondent/accused is liable to be enhanced in view of the injuries received by the injured Govindram. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused opposed submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that after due appreciation of evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the respondent/accused. Though there is fracture injury found on the leg of the injured Govindram but considering the part of the body by which injury was caused, the nature of weapon used and also impact of the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly considered that the offence of Section 307 of IPC is not made out but it is the offence under Section 325 of IPC is made out, and has sentenced the respondent/accused for the period has already undergone by him. The respondent/accused has already remained in jail for about 152 days, which is sufficient for the alleged offence of Section 325 of IPC as there is no minimum sentence provided for the said offence, therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the sentence awarded to accused. Even-otherwise, the awarding of sentence is a discretion to the learned trial Court which has been exercised in accordance with law, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court. 8. Present is an appeal for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent/accused. The respondent/accused has not challenge his conviction for offence under Section 325 of IPC. The challenge in the present appeal filed by the appellant is being examined on the basis of the evidence of the injured Govindram (PW-8) and a doctor who 5 treated him. (PW-8) Govindram has stated in his evidence that at the time of incident when he was sitting in the badi the respondent/ accused came there and after an initial altercation he assaulted him on his left leg when he stand up he received injury by the wooden log by which he went in unconsciousness. He was being taken to hospital and when he regain his conscious, he came to know that his left leg has been broken. The leading question was being asked then he resiled from his police statement. In cross-examination, he admitted that the injury received by him in his head was due to dashed by wooden log which was fixed towards the rooftop. The injury on the head was not caused by the respondent/accused. He voluntary stated that when the respondent/accused assaulted him on leg, he stand-up all of sudden then he received injury on his head. 9. (PW-11) Dr. Sunil Pendro, who treated the injured at CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, have proved the injuries on the body of the injured i.e., lacerated wound on right occipital region with mild swelling as well as puncture wound on left leg with fracture of tibia fibula bone and he also proved the injury report (Ex.P-10). In his cross-examination the defence could not be able to brought anything, which makes his evidence disbelieve. Likewise (PW-2) Dr. Ram Kishan Jitpure, who is radiologist at CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur have proved the fracture on tibia fibula bone of left leg of the injured and proved his X-ray report (Ex.P-3). In his cross-examination, the defence could not be able to brought anything which makes his evidence doubtful. When it is a case of the injured himself that he received injury on being assault made by respondent/accused and his head injury was not caused by the respondent/accused, the respondent/accused cannot be hold guilty for causing injury to his head. 6 10. Consideration of learned trial Court that the injury was not on the vital part of the body of the injured caused by the respondent/accused therefore, instead of offence under Section 307 of IPC the respondent/accused has been convicted under Section 325 of IPC, after having gone through entire evidence available on record and the consideration of the learned trial Court, this Court is of the consider opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 325 of IPC instead of Section 307 of IPC and therefore, that part of the judgment is affirmed. 11. So far as the sentence awarded to the respondent/accused is concerned, true it is that the offence of Section 325 of IPC does not provided any minimum sentence, however, looking to the fracture injury received by the injured Govindram, and also in view of the provisions under Section 395 of BNSS, 2023, the injured (PW-8) Govindram is entitled for adequate compensation on account of the injury received by him by the assault made by the respondent/accused. Since the respondent/accused has already remained in jail for about 152 days and Section 325 of IPC does not provided any minimum sentence, this Court is not inclined to enhanced the custodial sentence of the respondent/accused, however, the learned trial Court has only awarded Rs.100/- fine, which in the opinion of this Court appears to be very low and does not satisfy the requirement of the sentencing the respondent/accused. 12. Accordingly, while maintaining the substantive jail sentence of the of the respondent/accused, awarded by the learned trial Court, the fine imposed upon him for the offence under Section 325 of IPC is enhanced from Rs.100/- to Rs.25,000/- which shall be payable by 7 the respondent/accused within three months from today, failing which the respondent/accused shall undergo R.I. for two months. The amount of fine so deposited by the respondent/accused shall be paid to the injured Govindram (PW-8) as compensation as provided under Section 395 of the BNSS, 2023. 13. With the aforesaid modification of the fine sentence awarded to the respondent/accused, the appeal filed by the Appellant/State is partly allowed. 14. The records of the trial Court be sent back alongwith a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge vaishali