Chattisgarh High Court
Kanhai Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13727
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 296 of 2017
1 - Kanhai Yadav S/o Shri Sundar Dev Yadav, Aged About 30 Years
Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Pachawal, Temna,
Beriyadamarpara, Police Station Sanawal, District Balrampur
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
2 - Makadu @ Makkhan, S/o Shri Sunder Dev Yadav, Aged About 36
Years Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Pachawal, Temna,
Beriyadamarpara, Police Station Sanawal, District Balrampur
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
3 - Shiv Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Sunder Dev Yadav, Aged About 40
Years Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Pachawal, Temna,
Beriyadamarpara, Police Station Sanawal, District Balrampur
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
4 - Sundar Dev Yadav, S/o Late Budhan Yadav, Aged About 62 Years
Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Pachawal, Temna,
Beriyadamarpara, Police Station Sanawal, District Balrampur
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh
5 - Umesh Yadav, S/o Shri Sundar Dev Yadav, Aged About 25 Years
Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Pachawal, Temna,
Beriyadamarpara, Police Station Sanawal, District Balrampur
Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
2
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Sanawal, District
Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Civil District Surguja Ambikapur
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Shri Neeraj Mehta, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Rajkumar Sahu, PL
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judgment on Board
23/03/2026
This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.02.2017, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 31/2013, whereby the learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, has convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced each of them to undergo RI of 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 147; to undergo RI for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/- u/s. 148 and to under RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/s. 325/149 IPC with default stipulations as detailed in the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 3
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief yet with necessary particulars, is that on 07.08.2013 at about 7:00 PM, all the accused persons, namely Kanhai Yadav, Makadu @ Makkhan, Shiv Kumar Yadav, Sundar Dev Yadav and Umesh Yadav, forming an unlawful assembly and being armed with deadly weapons such as axe and lathi, reached the house of the complainant. It is alleged that the accused persons, sharing a common object, started hurling filthy abuses and extended threats to the life of the victim. Thereafter, in furtherance of their common object, they launched a violent assault upon the victim, wherein accused Kanhai Yadav dealt a blow by means of an axe near the head/ear region of the victim, while the remaining accused persons assaulted him by lathis and clubs, targeting various parts of his body including chest, back and legs. As a result of the said brutal assault, the victim sustained multiple injuries and fell down on the ground in a semi- conscious condition. On witnessing the occurrence, the complainant raised hue and cry, upon which nearby persons gathered at the spot, compelling the accused persons to flee from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a report at Police Station Sanawal, on the basis of which Crime No. 40/2013 was registered against the accused persons. During the course of investigation, the injured was medically examined, spot map was prepared, blood-stained soil and other articles were seized, statements of witnesses were recorded, and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.
3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused/appellants, 4 prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.
4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court by judgment impugned, has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment. Hence the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and order of sentence contending that the same is contrary to law and facts available on record and suffers from gross misappreciation of evidence. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to properly scrutinize the evidence in its correct perspective and has erroneously recorded the finding of conviction merely on the basis of interested and partisan witnesses, who are closely related to the complainant and the victim. It is argued that no independent witness from the locality has been examined, despite the incident having allegedly taken place in front of the house of the complainant in the evening hours.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly with regard to the manner of assault, weapons used, and the role attributed to each of the accused persons. Such inconsistencies, it is contended, go to the root of the prosecution case and render the same wholly unreliable. It is also 5 contended that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular version of the prosecution. As per the medical report, no specific injury attributable to a sharp-edged weapon-axe has been found, which creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution story.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the entire case is a result of false implication due to prior enmity and land dispute between the parties, and the appellants have been roped in with an ulterior motive. It is further argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the common object of the unlawful assembly so as to attract the provisions of Section 149 IPC. It is further submitted that even as per the prosecution case, the specific overt act has been attributed only to appellant No. 1, who is alleged to have inflicted the axe blow upon the victim. It is contended that the remaining appellants have been falsely implicated by way of omnibus allegations, without any clear or specific role assigned to them. It is argued that in absence of any distinct and credible evidence demonstrating active participation of the other appellants, their conviction with the aid of Section 149 IPC is unsustainable in law. He submits that mere presence at the place of occurrence, without proof of sharing a common object, is insufficient to fasten criminal liability.
8. Without prejudice to the above submissions, it is contended that even if the prosecution case is taken at its face value, the offence, at best, would fall under Section 323 or 324 IPC, and not under Section 325 IPC. It is further submitted that the sentence awarded is excessive and unjustified, particularly in view of the fact that the appellants have 6 already undergone a period of incarceration and have no criminal antecedents. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the appellants be acquitted; or in the alternative, the conviction and sentence be suitably modified.
9. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the same is well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. It is contended that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent, consistent and trustworthy evidence. The testimony of the injured witness, namely the victim, carries great evidentiary value and cannot be discarded lightly. The same is duly corroborated by the testimony of other eyewitnesses, including the complainant. He further submits that minor discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of witnesses are natural and do not affect the core of the prosecution case. It is well settled that such minor inconsistencies are bound to occur due to lapse of time and normal errors of observation. It is also argued that the medical evidence fully supports the prosecution version, as the injuries sustained by the victim are consistent with the weapons alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence. He submits that the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and in furtherance of their common object, they assaulted the victim. Thus, the ingredients of Sections 147, 148 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC are fully established.
7
10. He submits that the prosecution evidence clearly establishes that appellant No. 1 acted as the principal assailant, who inflicted the axe blow upon the victim. However, it is contended that the role of the remaining appellants cannot be minimized, as they were active members of the unlawful assembly and had participated in the assault by means of lathis. It is further submitted that the incident was a concerted act, and all the accused persons shared a common object to assault the victim. Therefore, even if a specific overt act is attributed to appellant No. 1, the liability of the other accused persons is clearly attracted under Section 149 IPC, which embodies the principle of constructive liability.
11. It is further contended that the learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view by not convicting the accused under Section 307 IPC, and therefore, no further indulgence is warranted in favour of the appellants. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire record of the case with utmost circumspection.
13. At the outset, it is to be noted that the conviction of the appellants is primarily founded upon the testimony of the injured witness Ramadhar Yadav and the eye-witness Manjari Devi (P.W.-2). The law with regard to appreciation of the evidence of an injured witness is well settled. The testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal and is generally considered reliable, as he is a natural witness to the 8 occurrence and the injuries on his person lend intrinsic assurance to his presence at the scene of crime. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259, wherein it has been held that the testimony of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for its rejection.
14. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence, it is evident that the injured witness has categorically deposed regarding the presence of all the accused persons, the weapons carried by them, and the manner in which the assault was carried out. His testimony finds substantial corroboration from the statement of Manjari Devi (P.W.-2), who is an eye-witness to the incident. Merely because the witnesses are related to the victim, their testimony cannot be discarded. It is a settled proposition of law that related witnesses are not necessarily interested witnesses, and their evidence can be relied upon if it is otherwise trustworthy and credible. In State of U.P. v. Krishna Master, (2010) 12 SCC 324, the Supreme Court has held that the evidence of related witnesses cannot be rejected solely on the ground of relationship.
15. In the present case, nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses so as to discredit their testimony. The so-called contradictions pointed out by the defence are minor in nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. It is trite law that minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of truthful witnesses due to lapse of time and normal errors of observation. The medical evidence on record further fortifies the prosecution case. The 9 injuries sustained by the victim have been proved by the doctor, and the nature of injuries is consistent with the assault alleged by the prosecution. Thus, the ocular evidence stands duly corroborated by medical evidence, leaving no room for doubt regarding the occurrence of the incident.
16. So far as the question of unlawful assembly and common object is concerned, it is evident from the evidence on record that all the accused persons had come together, armed with weapons, and collectively assaulted the victim. Their conduct clearly establishes that they shared a common object, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 149 IPC. The law is well settled that once the common object is established, each member of the unlawful assembly becomes vicariously liable for the acts done in prosecution of that object.
17. However, with regard to the nature of offence, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 307 IPC. Although an axe was allegedly used, the injuries sustained by the victim, as reflected from the medical evidence, do not indicate such severity so as to infer an intention to cause death. There is no material on record to establish that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or that the appellants had the requisite intention or knowledge to commit murder.
18. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843, 10 wherein it has been held that the mere fact that an injury has been caused by a dangerous weapon is not sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of Section 307 IPC unless intention or knowledge to cause death is established. Thus, the finding of the learned trial Court convicting the appellants under Sections 147, 148 and 325/149 IPC does not warrant interference and is hereby affirmed.
19. Now adverting to the question of sentence, it is to be noted that the incident is of the year 2013, and more than a decade has elapsed since then. The appellants have faced the ordeal of criminal proceedings for a considerable period. It has been brought on record that the appellants have remained in custody for about 10 months;07 months; 05 months; respectively during the course of trial. There is no material to show that they have any criminal antecedents.
20. Considering the nature of injuries, the manner of occurrence, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the sentence awarded by the trial Court is unduly severe and not commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
21. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the sentence. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is modified to the extent that the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them in 11 custody. The fine amount, if already deposited, shall remain intact.
22. The appellants are reported to be on bail. They need not surrender, in view of modification of sentence to the period already undergone, subject to payment of fine, if not already deposited.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date:
2026.03.25 14:40:14 +0530