1 2026:CGHC:8698 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.762 of 2008 1 - Ram Kumar Banjare, S/o Moti Lal Banjare, aged about 36 years 2- Janak Ram Banjare, S/o Moti Lal Banjare, aged about 41 years 3 – Smt. Shakuntala Bai, W/o Ram Kumar Banjare, aged about 32 years All R/o Chakapendra, PS Nandghat, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Nandghat, District Durg (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Bennoon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, PL for the State. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 18/02/2026 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Bemetara, District Durg Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 (C.G.) in Session Trial No.241/2005, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 323/34 & 324/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and RI for 2 years with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.06.2005 at about 7:30 a quarrel was taking place between Tekchand and Ramkumar and Tekchand was in drunken condition, then Hemant reached to the place and tried to pacify the matter, upon which the accused Ramkumar abused Hemant and thereafter took a sword from his house and assaulted Hemant on his head by sword, upon which Hemant fell down, then the accused Janakram and Shakuntala assaulted Hemant by club, upon which he sustained injuries in his thigh and back, thereafter he cried for help, upon which Tekchand and Ramjivan came there but they too were assaulted by the accused persons. Thereafter the accused persons fled away and the injured were admitted to hospital. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellants before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 3 witnesses despite that the learned Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellants, hence prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, He submits that the incident took place in the year 2005, this appeal is pending since 2008, the appellant Nos.1 & 2 remained in jail for more than 1 month, whereas the appellant No.3, who is lady, remained in jail for more than 15 days, presently they are aged between 50-60 years and they never misused the liberty granted by this Court and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them behind the bars, therefore, the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 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 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, 323 read with Section 34, 325 read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC against the appellants. After appreciation 4 of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 394, 325 read with Section 34 and Section 307 of IPC and convicted and sentenced them, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. PW-1 Chudamani stated that on 11.06.2005 at about 7:30 a quarrel was taking place between Tekchand and Ramkumar and Tekchand was in drunken condition, then his brother namely Hemant reached to the place and tried to pacify the matter, upon which the accused Ramkumar abused his brother Hemant and thereafter took a sword from his house and assaulted Hemant on his head by sword, upon which Hemant fell down, then the accused Janakram and Shakuntala assaulted Hemant by club, upon which he sustained injuries in his thigh and back, thereafter he cried for help, upon which Tekchand and Ramjivan came there but they too were assaulted by the accused persons. Thereafter the accused persons fled away and the injured were admitted to hospital. 8. PW-2 Dhan Singh, PW-4 Hemant, PW-5 Ramjivan and PW-6 Tekchand all stated that on the date of incident, all the accused persons assaulted the injured Hemant by sword and club, as such Hemant Kumar and Ramjivan sustained injuries. 9. PW-8 Dr. T. N. Mahingleshwar stated that he examined the injured Tekchand and found 3 injuries on his body. The injuries are simple in nature. He gave his report (Ex-P/8). He examined 5 Hemant and referred him for District Hospital. He gave his report as Ex-P/9. He also examined Ramjivan and wound cuts were found on his body. He gave his report vide Ex-P/10. 10. No treating doctor or specialist was examined by the prosecution so the learned Trial Court rightly found that the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the injured sustained grievous injuries and all injuries are dangerous to life and rightly convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 323 read with Section 34 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC as such the conviction awarded by the learned Trial Court to the appellants is hereby affirmed. 11. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2005, this appeal is pending since 2008, the appellant Nos.1 & 2 remained in jail for more than 1 month, whereas the appellant No.3, who is lady, remained in jail for more than 15 days, presently they are aged between 50-60 years and they never misused the liberty granted by this Court and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them behind the bars, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 12. The appeal is partly allowed. 13. The appellants are reported to be on bail. 14. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the 6 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. 15. 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