Pyarelal Khare vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 858 Chatt

                                                                     NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            CRA No. 1576 of 2019

      Pyarelal Khare S/o Late Bhoklo Khare Aged About 65 Years R/o.
       Sukli P.S. Janjgir District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

                                                             ---- Appellant

                                     Versus

      State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Janjgir District
       Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

                                                          ---- Respondent

For Appellant :Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For State/Respondent :Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board

06.07.2021

1. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally

through video conferencing.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

26.09.2019, passed in Special Sessions Case No. 41/2018 by

the learned Upper Sessions Judge(FTC), Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir

Champa(C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been convicted for

the offence punishable under Sections 354 & 307 of the IPC

and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of

Rs. 500/- and RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-

respectively, with default stipulations.

3. In this case, victim (PW-1) is a widow lady. According to the

case of prosecution, the Appellant is the distant relative of the

victim. It has been alleged that on 28.02.2018 at about 1 PM,

the Appellant entered in house of the victim and by saying

that 'this house is mine, why you living here', abused and

assaulted her with the help of knife, due to which she

sustained injuries on his stomach and chest. On the basis of

above, the matter was reported by Gajadhar Khare (PW-2).

Later on, statements of victim and witnesses recorded under

Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation,

charge-sheet was filed by the Police. Trial Court framed the

charges against the Appellant. To robe the Appellant in the

crime-in-question, the prosecution has examined as many as

11 witnesses. In the statement of the Appellant recorded

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he has pleaded his innocence

and false implication in the matter, however, no defence

witness was examined by the Appellant. After completion of

trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as

mentioned in Para 02 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the

prosecution agency has failed to prove the guilt of the

Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submits

that there are material contradictions and omissions occurred

in the deposition of prosecution witnesses. The Counsel

further submits that there is nothing on record on the basis of

which offence under Section 354 of the IPC can be proved

against the Appellant, in spite of that he has been convicted

for the said offence. There was also no intention of the

Appellant to kill the deceased, therefore, conviction under

Section 307 of the IPC is also false within the ambit of Section

326 of the IPC. Hence, his conviction is not sustainable.

5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal

and supported the impugned judgment.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

parties and perused the record minutely. I have also gone

through the statements of the witnesses minutely.

7. The Appellant is the distant relative of victim (PW-1). In her

Court statement victim (PW-1) deposed that at the time of

incident, the Appellant was entered in her courtyard of the

house, caught hold her hands, scuffled with her and when she

fell down on floor, the Appellant assaulted her three times with

the help of knife. Thereafter, the victim ran away, the

Appellant followed her less with knife. On way, she met with

one Gangu and told him about the incident and thereafter she

went to the house of Govind where Ishwar and Gangu taken

her to District Hospital. Gajadhar Khare (PW-2) corroborated

the statement of victim (PW-1) and deposed that after the

incident, he met with the victim in the District Hospital where

she has been hospitalized, the victim told him that due to

some land dispute with the Appellant, he assaulted her on his

stomach and hand with the help of knife. He further deposed

that FIR has been lodged by him vide (Ex. P-1). Fulwa (PW-4)

daughter of the victim and Deviprasad (PW-5) also supported

the statement of the victim.

8. Dr. Harishchand Shrivastava (PW-7) examined the victim, his

report is (Ex. P-8). According to the medical report of the

victim, she sustained four injuries stabbed with knife on her

body, one was in her left hand and other three were on her

chest and stomach. According to information given by the

Doctor, the injuries were dangerous for life of the victim.

9. The victim has fully supported the case of prosecution and

deposed according to the case of prosecution. Her statement

is duly corroborated by Gajadhar Khare (PW-2), Fulwa (PW-

3) & Deviprasad (PW-5). The medical evidence also

corroborated the statement of the victim. On perusal of entire

evidence available on record, it is well established that the

Appellant has assaulted the victim with knife and the victim

sustained four injuries on her body wherein three injuries

were on her vital part.

10. Looking to the above statements of the above witnesses and

material available on record, in my considered view, the Trial

Court has rightly convicted the Appellant for the offence

punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.

11. With regard to offence under Section 354 of the IPC, victim

(PW-1) in her Court statement deposed that the Appellant

caught her for outrage her modesty, but this fact has not been

mentioned in the FIR vide (Ex. P-1). It appears that she

developed her statement in this regard. Therefore, the

statement of the victim in this regard is suspicious. Thus, the

offence under Section 354 of the IPC is not proved beyond

reasonable doubt. Hence, the Appellant is acquitted from the

offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC.

12. Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of

the Appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is affirmed and

with regard to the sentence part, considering the fact that the

Appellant is in jail since 02.03.2018 and has undergone about

3 years 4 months out of 5 years of jail sentence and he has

no criminal antecedent. Looking to the above facts, the

conviction of the Appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is

reduced from 5 years to 4 years and the fine sentence is

affirmed.

13. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of

this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham