1 2026:CGHC:19097 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.688 of 2012 1 - Dwarika Yadav (Died And Abated) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 15-09-2025 2 - Bholaram Yadav S/o Dwarika Yadav Aged About 37 Years 3 - Sankarlal Yadav S/o Dwarika Yadav Aged About 30 Years All R/o Village Borid, P.S. Ranitarai, Distt. Durg C.G. Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ranitarai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Afroj Khan, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 25/04/2026 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge (FTC), Durg (C.G.) in Session Trial No.7/2011, whereby the appellants have been Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 convicted under Sections 307 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/- & RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/-, respectively, with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17.11.2010, when the complainants Santu Yadav and Satruhan Yadav were returning from the house of their friend and reached near Village Borid, the appellants stopped them, abused them and assaulted them by knife and club, as a result of which the complainants received injuries and were admitted in hospital. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused and they were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellants before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The complainants did not receive any grievous injuries and only received simple injuries despite that the appellants have been convicted under Section 307 of IPC. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, He submits that during pendency of the appeal, the appellant 3 Dwarika has died, the incident took place in the year 2010, this appeal is pending since 2012, the appellants Nos.2 & 3 are aged about 50 years and they remained in jail for about 1 year and 11 months and have never misused the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sivamani and another vs State represented by Inspector of Police, passed in CRA No.3619/2023, decided on 28.11.2023. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 307 read with Section 34, 307, 506 Part-II of IPC against all the appellants. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant Dwarika under Sections 307 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, the appellant Bholaram under Sections 307 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and the appellant Shankar Lal under Sections 4 307 read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. 7. As per prosecution, all the accused persons assaulted Shatruhan Yadav and Santuram Yadav and they sustained grievous injuries which were dangerous to their life. 8. PW-1 Santu Yadav stated that on the date of incident, Dwarika assaulted them with knife and other accused persons also assaulted them by stone. 9. PW-2 Shatruhan stated that Bhola assaulted him by knife in his stomach. Both the witnesses remained firm in their cross- examination. 10. Dr. R. S. Satyarthi (PW-5) examined Santu Ram and found one stab injury and one abrasion on his hip and referred for District Hospital, Durg and gave his report (Ex-P/3). He also examined the injured Shatruhan and found one stab injury in his stomach and gave his report Ex-P/4. He also answered query of prosecution as per Ex-P/5 and stated that if treatment would not have been given on time, then the injuries could have been dangerous to life. 11. PW-12 Dr. Sarita Minj stated that Santu Yadav was admitted in hospital on 18.11.2010. He was discharged on 25.11.2010. He found one injury on his hip and on same day on 18.11.2010, Shatruhan was also admitted. He referred him for Medical College, Raipur for treatment and bed head ticket of Santu is Ex- P/16 of Santuram, whereas bed head ticket of Shatruhan is Ex- 5 P/17. 12. No other medical evidence or document was filed by the prosecution to prove this fact that both the injured witnesses were admitted in hospital for more than 20 days and any grievous injury was sustained by them. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sivamani (supra) held in paras 9, 10, 11 & 12 as under:- “9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held that to sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. In the same judgment, it was pointed out that ‘…The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.’ The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (supra) and Kanha (supra), it was observed that while grievous or life-threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.’ 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is convinced that the Impugned Judgment of the High Court requires to be interfered with. Admittedly, there is no allegation of repeated or severe blows having been inflicted. Even the injuries on PW1 and PW2 have been found to be simple in nature, which is an additional point in the appellants’ favour. 6 11. We are further inclined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that from the materials on record, only offences under Sections 3232 and 3243 of the IPC can be made out. As such, the conviction under Section 307, IPC is unsustainable. 12. In the background of the discussions made hereinabove and on taking an overall view, the Impugned Judgment is varied only to the extent that the conviction of the appellants stands modified to that under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC and the sentence imposed is also reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed is maintained. The appellants stand discharged of the liabilities of their bail bonds, if any.” 14. In light of above and looking to the statement of Medical Officers, it is clear that offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out against the appellants so they are convicted under Section 324 of IPC instead of Section 307 of IPC. 15. As regards sentence, it is clear that during pendency of the appeal, the appellant Dwarika has died, the incident took place in the year 2010, this appeal is pending since 2012, the appellants Nos.2 & 3 are aged about 50 years and they remained in jail for about 1 year and 11 months and have never misused the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellants is sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 16. The appeal is partly allowed. 17. The appellant Nos.2 & 3 are reported to be on bail. 18. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the 7 appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each before the Court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 19. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala