1 CGHC010103362026 2026:CGHC:42624 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.717 of 2026 1 - Mannu Baghel S/o Teejram Baghel Aged About 35 Years R/o Tundra, Police Station -Gidhauri, District - Balodabazar -Bhatapara (C.G.) Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Sarsinwa, District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, PL Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 30/09/2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 415 (2) of BNSS, 2023 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of the learned Additional Session Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bhilaigarh in ST No.45/2024, whereby the appellant has been Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 convicted under Section 109 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Neera Bai lodged a written report at Police Station, Sarsinwa alleging therein that on 16.07.2024, she returned to her parental house at Village-Kediyarwar, as the appellant, who is her husband, used to beat her. On 07.08.2024, the appellant came to her parental house to bring her back, but she refused to return with the appellant and upon advice of her family members, the appellant returned to his house. On 08.08.2024 again, the appellant visited her parental house to bring her back and on her refusal, the appellant abused her and assaulted her by means of knife, due to which she received stab injury in her abdomen. Thereafter, a case was registered against the appellant vide Crime No.291/2024 for the offence under Section 109 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Magistrate concerned for the offence under Sections 296 & 109 of IPC. 3. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3 4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents in its support, whereas the appellant examined 2 witnesses in his defence. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant and the victim are husband and wife. The victim had left the company of the appellant without any reason, therefore, the appellant had gone to her parental home to bring her back, but since the victim refused to come with him, therefore, only some scuffle had taken place and no injury was caused by the appellant to the victim. He further submits that even otherwise, the injury sustained to the victim has been reported to be simple in nature, therefore, the alleged offence does not fall under Section 109 of IPC, rather it falls under Section 118 (1) of BNS. Alternatively Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the conviction of the appellant is not set aside, then considering the fact that the appellant and the victim are husband and wife and presently the appellant is aged about only 35 years and has remained in jail for about 10 months i.e. from 10.08.2024 to 26.10.2024 and thereafter from the date of the impugned judgment i.e. 26.02.2026 to till date, therefore, the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 6. On the contrary, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court after properly 4 appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, as such no interference is called for by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the record of the learned Trial Court. 8. The victim Neera Bai ( PW-1) stated in her deposition that since she had left her matrimonial home and come to her parental home, the appellant, who is her husband, had come to her parental home to take her back on the date of incident. She further stated that she had refused to join company of the appellant, as he used to beat her. She also stated that in the afternoon of 08.08.2024, when she was giving meal to her father, at that time the appellant stabbed her on her stomach by means of knife, as a result of which she sustained injuries. The aforesaid fact has also been supported by Guharam Jangde (PW-2), father of the victim, Usha Bai (PW-3), sister-in-law of the victim and Neshwari Bai (PW-4), neighbour of the victim. Nothing has been elucidated in the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses to discard their statement made on oath. 9. PW-5 Dr. Hitesh Nirala examined the victim on same day of the date of incident i.e. on 08.08.2024 and gave his report (Ex-P/7- A). He reported that upon examination, he found stab wound of 2x0.25x0.5 cm size on upper side of stomach of the victim. He 5 further opined that the injury was caused by hard and pointed object but the nature of injure was simple. 10. On due consideration of the evidence available on record, it has rightly been held by the learned Upper Session Judge that the appellant had caused injury to the victim by means of knife, as such the victim had sustained injury on her upper part of stomach but the nature of injury has been found to be simple. 11. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kashirao, reported in (2003) 10 SCC 434, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has identified the essential ingredients for the applicability of the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The relevant extract is as below:- “The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence under Section 307 are: (i) that the death of a human being was attempted; (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as: (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.” 12. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid ingredients, as no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to hold the appellant guilty under Section 109 of IPC, rather it has been proved by the prosecution that the appellant 6 caused simple injury to the victim by means of knife, as such conviction of the appellant under Section 109 of IPC is not sustainable and instead, the offence caused by the appellant is found proved under Section 118 (1) of BNS. Therefore, conviction of the appellant is modified and instead of offence under Section 109 of IPC, he is convicted for the offence under Section 118 (1) of BNS. 13. Insofar as the sentence part is concerned, as per the certificate prepared by the learned Additional Session Judge under Section 468 of BNSS, the appellant was on bail during trial i.e. from 10.08.2024 to 26.10.2024 and thereafter he is in jail from the date of the date of the impugned judgment i.e. 26.02.2026 to till date, as such the appellant has remained in jail for about 10 months and the appellant and the victim are husband and wife. Thus, having considered the relationship between both the parties and for the fact that the victim sustained only simple injury, ends of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. It is ordered accordingly. 14. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned Trial Court is maintained; however the jail sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him (from 10.08.2024 to 26.10.2024 and thereafter from the date of the 7 impugned judgment i.e. 26.02.2026 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. 15. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case. 16. 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. 17. Interim application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Nirala