Chattisgarh High Court
Dinesh Kumar @ Ganesh Kumar Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 1313 of 2017
Dinesh Kumar @ Ganesh Kumar Thakur, S/o Uday Singh Thakur,
aged about 23 year, R/o Palnar Mundapara, Police Station -
Kuakonda, District - Dantewada (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station- Kuakonda, District -
Dantewada (C.G.)
----Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Suresh Tandon, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Judgment On Board
11-04-2022
1. Counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant has already
remained in jail for more than six years, this appeal may be heard finally.
He submits that he is not challenging the conviction of the
accused/appellant and would confine his arguments to sentence part of
the impugned judgment only. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear the
case finally.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 28.04.2017 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge,
South Bastar, Dantewada in Sessions Trial No. 38/2016 convicting the
accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.11.2015 at about 7.30
pm complainant, who is father of accused/appellant, Dinesh Kumar @
Ganesh Kumar Thakur, was in his house, at that point of time,
accused/appellant came from outside and when the complainant asked
him that being an old man, "I do the work but you do not do any work",
hence, accused/appellant quarreled with him and by threatening him to
kill, assaulted upon his father by means of axe and caused him four
injuries upon wrist and chest and also slammed a stone on his face, due
to which, his teeth got injured. Complainant was taken into Maharani
Hospital, Jagdalpur, where he got admitted. Thereafter, he lodged Dehati
Nalishi in Police Help Centre of the said Hospital. Based on that Dehati
Nalishi, present crime was registered under Section 307 of the IPC
against the appellant in police Station Kuakonda, District South Bastar,
Dantewada. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed
against the appellant/accused under Section 307 of the IPC before the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dantewada, who in turn committed the
case to the Court of Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada, from
where the learned Additional Sessions Judge has received the case for
trial. Charge under Section 307 of the IPC was framed and the same was
read and explained to the accused/appellant, which he denied and his
plea was recorded.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution
has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. Statement
of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and
pleaded his innocence and false implication in crime in question.
5. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and
sentenced the accused/appellant for the offence as mentioned above.
Hence, this appeal.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record including the judgment impugned.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the
accused/appellant has been convicted for attempt of murder of his father
but neither any doctor has been examined to prove the injuries sustained
by him in the said incident nor any medical document has been proved,
therefore, conviction of accused/appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is
bad in law, as no such evidence is available on record, which could prove
that the alleged injuries caused by the accused/appellant were grievous in
nature and likely to cause death of the complainant. He further submits
that accused/appellant has already remained in jail since his arrest i.e.
from 18.11.2015, till date, thus, he has completed more than 6 years of
jail sentence, whereas sentence which has been awarded to him is of 10
years, therefore, he is not pressing this appeal as regards conviction part
of the judgment impugned and would confine his argument to the
sentence part of the same only. He further submits that interest of justice
would be served if the sentence awarded to the accused/appellant is
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
8. To this proposition of counsel for the appellants, State Counsel has
no objection.
9. Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that the appellant has served
out more than six year of his jail sentence and the complainant is his
father, it also seems from the evidence that incident took place in
intoxicating condition of the accused/appellant, hence, this court is of the
view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping him in detention
any further and interest of justice would be served if he is sentenced to
the period already undergone by him.
10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the
impugned judgment is maintained but sentence imposed on him is
reduced to the period undergone by him. Hence, he be set free forthwith,
if not required in any other case.
Sd/-
(N.K.Chandravanshi)
D/- Judge
D/-
