1 2026:CGHC:18885 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 538 of 2008 1 - Sanat @ Santan S/o Parsel Prasad Satnami Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Pakariya, Police Station Pathariya, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Santosh (Died) (Abated) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 28-10-2025 3 - Dujeram S/o Parsel Prasad Satnami, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Pakariya, Police Station Pathariya, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pathariya, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav appears on behalf of Mr. Anurag Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment On Board 2 24/04/2026 1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2008 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 317/2006, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Conviction Sentence U/s 294 of IPC R.I. for 7 days each U/s 323/34 of IPC R.I. for 6 months each U/s 323/34 of IPC R.I. for 6 months each U/s 325/34 of IPC R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo R.I. for 01 month each 2. Facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that the complainant, namely Kulbul, owns an agricultural field wherein a tube well is installed for irrigation purposes. Approximately two days prior to the date of the incident, after laying a pipeline connected to the said tube well, the complainant was irrigating the field of Munnibai by drawing water across the road, when the said pipeline was found to have been cut by some unknown person. On the date of the incident, i.e., 10.09.2005, at about 6:00–7:00 PM, the brother of the complainant namely Kuber concealed himself near a Babul tree situated close to tube well, with a view to identify the person responsible for cutting the pipeline. During this time, one Bullu Satnami, a resident of the same village, while returning after grazing 3 cattle, struck the pipeline, as a result of which the valve opened and water began to flow out towards the river. Upon witnessing this, Kuber informed his brother Kulbul about the occurrence and thereafter apprised the village head, namely Deepak Sharma, along with Panch members including Mantram, Panna and Sadhu. All of them proceeded to the spot and inspected the pipeline. The Panchas called Bullu Satnami to the spot; however, he declined to come at that time, stating that he would attend the matter the following morning. Consequently, the Panchas decided to deliberate upon the issue the next day, and all persons returned to their respective homes. Subsequently, at about 11:00 PM on the same night, the accused persons, namely Bullu Satnami, Sanat @ Santan, Dujeram and Santosh, all armed with lathis (sticks), arrived at the house of Kuber. They falsely accused him of cutting the tube well pipeline and while hurling obscene abuses, assaulted Kulbul with sticks, causing injuries on his head, cheek, left hand and left leg. When Kuber and his sister-in-law Sushila Bai intervened to rescue Kulbul, the accused persons also assaulted them with sticks, causing injuries. The accused further criminally intimidated the victims by threatening to kill them in case the matter was reported to the police. The incident was witnessed by Rajaram, Kallu Sahu and other persons present. Thereafter, a report was lodged by the complainant at Police Station Patharia. The injured persons namely Kulbul, Kuber and Sushila Bai, were medically examined and X-ray examination of the injured was conducted. During the course of investigation, a stick alleged to have been used in the commission of 4 the offence was seized from the possession of accused Santosh. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 294, 323 read with Section 34, 325 read with Section 34, and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patharia. It is further submitted that a counter-case arising out of the same incident is also pending before the competent court. Accordingly, the present case, being triable by the Sessions Court, has been committed and transferred to this Court for trial in accordance with law. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 294, 323 read with Section 34, 325 read with Section 34 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. The statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied all incriminating circumstances put to them and pleaded false implication and innocence. No defence evidence was adduced. 4. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellants of the charge punishable under Section 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellants were held guilty and consequently convicted and sentenced for the remaining offences, as detailed in para 1 of the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court has erred in law and on facts in recording the conviction. The impugned judgment and sentence are contrary to the evidence on record and settled principles of law and the sentence imposed is unduly harsh. The prosecution has examined key witnesses, namely Maniram Gond (P.W.-1), Dr. D.R. Singraul (P.W.-2), Gangaram (P.W.-3), Prabhakar Yadav (P.W.-4), Kulbuldas (P.W.-5), Ramavtaar Anant (P.W.-6), Kuberdas (P.W.-7), Makhan Satnami (P.W.-8), Smt. Sushila (P.W.-9), Smt. Madhubai (P.W.-10), L. Tigga (P.W.-11) and Dr. S. Chatterjee (P.W.-12). However, their testimonies are unreliable, suffering from material contradictions, omissions and improvements, and do not support the prosecution case. The learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the defence version, resulting in a biased evaluation of evidence. There is no corroborative forensic evidence as no blood stains were found at the place of occurrence, on the complainant’s clothes or on the alleged weapon, casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. There is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, which further weakens the prosecution case. The prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt or establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences; hence, the conviction is unsustainable. In view of the aforesaid facts and grounds, it is most respectfully prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the alleged charges. Alternatively, he further contends that without assailing the finding of conviction, the appellants have restricted the present 6 appeal solely to the question of quantum of sentence. It is urged that the incident is of the year 2005, the appeal has remained pending since 2008, the appellant namely Sanat was about 28 years of age and Dujeram was aged about 24 years of age at the time of the incident and as of now both of them are aged about more than 40 years and they have already undergone at about 18 days of incarceration. In view of these mitigating circumstances, it is prayed that the sentence already undergone be treated as sufficient punishment. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State, while supporting the impugned judgment, submits that the learned Trial Court, after meticulous appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the alleged offence. It is therefore contended that the present appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. A perusal of the record of the learned Trial Court reveals that charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 294, 323 read with Section 34, 325 read with Section 34 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, while convicting them for the remaining offences. 7 9. Kulbul Das Patle (P.W.-5) deposed that on the date of the incident, at about 11:00 P.M., the appellants, along with other co-accused persons, came to his house armed with an axe and sticks with the intention to assault him. He further stated that when his brother Kuber and sister-in-law Sushila Bai intervened to rescue him, they were also assaulted by the accused persons, as a result of which they sustained injuries. 10. Smt. Sushila (P.W.-9) and Smt. Madhu Bai (P.W.-10) have corroborated the version of the complainant in material particulars. 11.Dr. D.R. Singroul (P.W.-2), upon medical examination of the injured Kulbul, found six injuries on his head, chest, hand and face and advised radiological examination (X-ray). He proved his medical report as Ex. P/3. The said witness further examined injured Kuber Das and found simple injuries on his left index finger and head and proved his report as Ex. P/4. On the same day, he also examined Sushila Bai and found simple injuries on her head, shoulder and hips and proved his report as Ex. P/5. 12. Dr. S. Chatterjee (P.W.-12) conducted the X-ray examination of injured Kulbul and found a fracture in the lower one-third of the left ulna bone, and proved his report as Ex. P/13. 13. Upon a careful consideration of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that the testimony of the injured witnesses, namely Kulbul Das (P.W.-5), Kuber Das (P.W.-7) and Smt. Sushila Bai (P.W.-9), is consistent, cogent and duly corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. D.R. Singroul (P.W.-2) and Dr. S. Chatterjee 8 (P.W.-12). The medical reports clearly establish the injuries sustained by the victims, including the fracture suffered by Kulbul, thereby substantiating the prosecution case. Though certain witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, the evidence of injured witnesses carries great evidentiary value and cannot be discarded lightly. The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and has not committed any illegality in holding the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323 read with Section 34 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants is hereby affirmed. 14. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, having regard to the fact that the incident pertains to the year 2005 and the appeal has remained pending since 2008 coupled with the circumstance that the appellants have already undergone approximately 18 days of incarceration, this Court deems it appropriate to take a lenient view. It is also pertinent that at the time of the incident, appellant Sanat was about 28 years of age and appellant Dujeram was about 24 years of age and at present both are middle-aged. During the course of trial, the appellants remained on bail and there is nothing on record to indicate that they misused the liberty so granted. It is further noted that during the pendency of the present appeal, appellant Santosh has expired. In view of these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence imposed upon the surviving appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 9 15. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Sections 294, 323/34 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The fine amount, if not already deposited, shall be paid as directed by the learned Trial Court. 16. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months as provided under Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 17. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV