Chattisgarh High Court
Rajaram Sarthi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 September, 2025
-1-
2025:CGHC:46948
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1025 of 2025
Rajaram Sarthi S/o Ambalal Sarthi Aged About 45 Years R/o Village
Bade Hardi, Police Station Pusore, District Raigarh (C.G.)
... Appellant (s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pusore, District Raigarh
(C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu and Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 12/09/2025
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District-Raigarh in S.T. No.7 of 2024 whereby Digitally appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.8,000/-, in default Date:
2025.09.19 14:46:47 +0530 of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 1 year.-2-
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19/08/2023 at about 03.00 pm, when Pratap Yadav was chasing away, the cattle from pond's embankment, Deepak, son of Rajaram Sarthi (present appellant) started fighting with Pratap Yadav, saying why are you chasing away the cattle. Seeing this, Rajmilan Yadav father of Pratap Yadav told Deepak that even though he is elder, he is fighting and beating the child, upon which, Deepak Sarthi went to his father Rajaram Sarthi (present appellant) and told about the incident. Thereafter, appellant came with an axe in his hands, hurling filthy, threatened Rajmilan to kill him and with intention of killing, assaulted Rajmilan Yadav on the head. Rajmilan bow-down to one side but suffered injury. Wife of injured Rajmilan Yadav lodged a report of the incident to concerned police station upon which First Information Report was registered against the accused/appellant bearing Crime No. 210/2023 under Section 307 IPC. Injured was medically examined. Spot map of the crime scene was prepared. Injured's blood-stained T-shirt was seized. Blood-stained and plain soil was also seized from the crime scene. Memorandum statement of the accused was recorded. On production by the accused, one axe was seized. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Seized articles were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur for its chemical examination through the Superintendent of Police. After completing the investigation, charge sheet under Section 307 of IPC was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh from where case was remitted to Court of Sessions Judge, Raigarh for trial.
-3-
3. On being charged under Section 307 IPC, accused denied the charge and demanded trial. His statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence.
4. In order to prove the charge against appellant, prosecution examined 10 witnesses. No defence witness was examined by the accused/appellant in his defence.
5. Learned trial Court after due consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.
6. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that during pendency of this appeal an application under Section 359 (5) of the BNSS for permission to compound the offence has been jointly filed by wife of appellant - Tulsi Sarthi and complaint Rajmilan Yadav on the ground that both parties have arrived at amicable settlement and now complaint is having harmonious relationship with appellant and his family members and therefore complainant does not want to any further proceedings against appellant. A deed of settlement was also executed between the parties on the intervention of the Panchayat in presence of witnesses, wherein both the parties were agreed for compromise and have also decided to live with peace in future with each other, copy of which is filed as Annexure A-3. He submits in view of above fact, period of sentence imposed upon the appellant be reduced and he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. -4-
7. Learned State counsel, on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and submits that offence under Section 307 IPC is not compoundable, therefore the compromise between the parties cannot be entertained at this stage and the appeal be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of trial Court and also statement of victim/complainant recorded before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) on 22.08.2025.
9. In the case hand, appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years. During pendency of this appeal, it was brought to notice of this Court that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the complainant and appellant to the effect that complainant in change of circumstances have amicably settled the differences, he is having cordial relation with the family of appellant. Vide order dated 22.08.2025, this Court directed victim/complainant to appear before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) for recording statement of parties with respect to entering into a comprise. Pursuant to order passed by this Court on the same day, claimant- Rajmilan Yadav appeared before Additional Registrar (Judicial) and his statement was recorded. In his statement, he clearly stated that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between him and appellant on his own free will, without any coercion or inducement and that now he does not want any further proceeding against appellant/accused.
-5-
10. Though the appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC which is a serious offence, at the same time, it cannot be ignored that parties are resident of same village, they have amicably settled the matter. It can be apprehended that if the dispute is allowed to linger on between them, it would disturb their harmonious relationship and may become the cause of further rift.
11. From the case as projected by the parties during trial it is reflecting that accused-appellant is a villager and a labourer. He is first offender having no criminal antecedent. He has undergone incarceration of almost more than 4 months. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, continuation of a prolonged sentence would not serve any greater purpose of justice.
12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of case, particularly the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, deed of settlement executed between them with the intervention of the Panchayat on 10.08.2025 (Annexure A-3), considering that appellant is first offender and already undergone jail sentence of more than 4 months, while maintaining conviction of appellant under Section 307 of IPC, I am inclined to reduce the jail sentence awarded to appellant to the period already undergone by him. The fine amount and the default stipulation shall remain as it is.
13. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that fine amount has already been deposited by the appellant.
-6-
14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Instead of RI for 10 years, appellant is now sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
15. Copy of the order shall be forwarded to the concerned trial Court as also to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.
Sd/----/-/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen