1 CGHC010307792024 2026:CGHC:42168 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1742 of 2024 1 - Parasmani Nishad @ Pappu S/o Shri Babulal Aged About 22 Years R/o Dak Bunglow, Ward No.08, Gariyaband, Police Station And District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Avinash Kumar Sharma S/o Late Gopi Ram Sharma, Aged About 28 Years R/o Dak Bunglow, Ward No.08, Gariyaband, Police Station and District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. GA Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 28/09/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 14 A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC&ST (PA) Act, Raipur, C.G. in Special Criminal Case No.43/2023, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional RI for 2 months Under Section 25 of the Arms Act RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional RI for 1 month Under Section 27 of the Arms Act RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional RI for 2 months All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.08.2023, the complainant Avinash Diwan lodged a written complaint at the Police Station Gariyaband to the effect that on the date of incident i.e 09.08.2023 at around 10.00 A.M., when he was discharging his work and was carrying the travelers in his bus along with his friend Ajay Dongre and others, the appellants came there and started quarreling and abusing him by saying that earlier he did stabbing to them and started beating the complainant by means of the fist and glove. Then the appellant No.1 kept hold the complainant from back and the appellant No.2 with the means of knife attacked the complainant on which the complainant dodged 3 the blow and the knife was hit at the thigh of the complainant, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries. Thereafter he was taken to the hospital by nearby people. Upon the report of the complainant, an FIR was registered against the appellants vide Ex-P/13 for the offence under Sections 294, 323 & 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and the appellants were arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate concerned for the offences punishable under Sections 294 & 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellants denied the circumstances appearing against them. The statement of the appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, in which they abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. 4. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents in its support, whereas the appellants examined one witness in their defence. 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press the present appeal insofar as the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court against the appellants is concerned, rather he would confine his submissions 4 to the quantum of sentence only. He further submits that the appellants remained in custody from the date of their arrest i.e. 09.08.2023 to 30.11.2023 and thereafter from the date of the judgment i.e. 16.07.2024 to till date, thus the appellants have remained in jail for more than 2 years and 6 months, whereas the appellants have been awarded maximum jail sentence of 5 years, as such the appellants have already undergone the half of the jail sentence. Therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants may kindly be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7. On the contrary, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court after properly appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, as such no interference is called for by this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the record of the learned Trial Court. 9. Though, learned counsel for the appellants is not pressing the instant appeal on the conviction part of the judgment, however on perusal of the evidence available on record, it is apparent that the injured witness Avinash Diwan (PW-8) has specifically stated that on the date of incident, appellant No.1 Parasmani caught hold him from back and the appellant No.2 Avinash assaulted him by 5 means of a knife on his thigh, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries and the appellants also abused him on his caste. The aforesaid version of the injured witness finds corroboration from the eye witness Ajay Dongre, who was with the complainant at the time of the incident. Apart from it, Dr. Neha Sharma (PW-3), who medically examined the injured, also supported the case of the prosecution and found two incised wounds on his thigh and one cut in his left hand and opined that the injury could have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon and gave her report (Ex-P/10A). The evidence of the Investigating Officer Pushpendra Nayak (PW-7) and other prosecution witnesses further corroborates the seizure and other material aspects of the prosecution case. Thus, considering the deposition of the injured Avinash Diwan (PW-8), duly supported by the eye witness PW-2 Ajay Dongre as well as the medical and other corroborative evidence on record, the appellants have rightly been convicted by the learned Trial Court for the aforesaid offences, as such the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court convicting the appellants for the aforesaid offence is hereby affirmed. 10. Insofar as the sentence part of the appellants is concerned, it is apparent that the appellants have already undergone more than 2 years and 6 months of the jail sentence, which is half of the total jail sentence, as the appellants have been sentenced to the maximum period of 5 years, the appellants are young boys, aged about 22 years and 28 years, as the case may be, therefore, this 6 Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appellants in further detention to undergo the remaining period of sentence, rather the ends of justice would be served if their jail sentence under the aforesaid Sections is reduced to the period already undergone by them. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants recorded by the learned Trial Court is maintained; however the jail sentence imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. from the date of their arrest i.e. 09.08.2023 to 30.11.2023 and thereafter from the date of the judgment i.e. 16.07.2024 to till date. The sentence of fine imposed by the learned Trial Court is also maintained. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 12. The appellants are reported to be in jail. They be released forthwith, if they are not required to be detained in any other case. 13. Record of the learned Trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the Trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. 14. Interim application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Nirala