Gangaram Chauhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4991 Chatt

                                           1

                                                                           NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        Criminal Appeal No. 615 of 2021

Gangaram Chauhan S/o Mohan Chauhan Aged About 65 Years R/o- Village -
Naugdi, Police Chowki- Bhanwarpur, Police Station - Basna, District -
Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                                      ---- Appellant

                                      Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Mahasamund, District-
Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                                                  --- Respondent


      For Appellant         -        Shri Anand Kesharwani, Advocate
      For State             -        Shri Sameer Oraon, GA


     Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
04/08/2022
   1. By way of instant appeal the appellant is assailing the legality,

      validity    and    propriety    of       the   judgment   impugned   dated

      08.11.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, Dis-

      trict- Mahasamund (CG) in Sessions Trial No. 42/2018 convicting

      the accused/appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentencing

      him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay fine

      of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo

      rigourous imprisonment for 01 month.

   2. Facts

of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal in brevity

are that in the night of 22.05.2018 the accused/appellant herein

inflicted knife injuries to his wife Sanmoti. On the information

given by one Haradhan Chouhan (PW-7), an offence under

Section 307 IPC was registered against the appellant. After

drawing the spot map, the injured was taken to Community

Health Centre Basna for treatment. On the disclosure statement

of the appellant a knife was recovered from his possession; plain

as well as blood stained soil was collected; the statements of

the witnesses were recorded and the knife so seized was sent

for forensic examination.

3. After completion of investigation chargsheet was filed against

the appellant on 20.08.2018 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Basna from where the case was committed to the

Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge thereafter transferred

the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge for trial.

Charge under Section 307 IPC was framed by the Additional

Sessions Judge but the appellant denied the same and pleaded

for trial.

4. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as

many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was

also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure where he pleaded his innocence and false implication

in the same. He however did not examine anyone in support of

his case.

5. After hearing the parties and making due appreciation of the

evidence on record, learned Court below by the judgment

impugned convicted the accused/appellant under Section 307

IPC and imposed the sentence as detailed above. Hence this

appeal.

6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by

the Court below convicting and sentencing the

accused/appellant as mentioned above are not based on due

appreciation of the evidence on record and being so they are

liable to be set aside. Lastly, it is submitted that if conviction

part of the judgment impugned is not going to be interfered

with, looking to the fact that out of the total period of sentence

of RI for 5 years imposed on the appellant, he has already

remained behind the bars for more than 4 years and that the

incident had taken place about five years back and that by now

he is in the advancement of his age, no useful purpose would be

served in keeping him in further detention and therefore the

sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already

undergone.

7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports

the judgment impugned and submits that the judgment

impugned is based on just and proper appreciation of the

evidence of the witnesses and therefore no interference with the

same is called for in this appeal.

8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available

on record including the judgment impugned.

9. The core witnesses in this case appear to be the injured (PW-6)

and Dr. B.R. Malik (PW-8) who medically examined her and gave

his report (Ex.P-15). The injured has categorically stated in her

statement that when she was giving food to her husband (the

appellant) he inflicted a knife blow in her stomach as a result of

which she became unconscious and was taken to hospital at

Basna by her neighboures from where looking to her condition

she was referred to Medical College, Raipur where she remained

hospitalised for about 13 days and it is her son who used to take

care of her in the hospital. In cross examination also she

remained firm to what she stated in the examination in chief.

Bhagwati (PW-1) who remained in the hospital with the injured

has clearly stated that she was informed by the injured that it is

the accused who inflicted knife blows to her, and thus supported

the case of the prosecution. Likewise, Narendra yadav (PW-3) and

Haradhan (PW-7) are the witnessess to seizure of knife vide

seizure memo Ex. P-6 and P-7 and they also supported the case

of the prosecution. Similarly Dr. B.R. Malik (PW-8) who medically

examined the injured and gave his report Ex. P-15 has stated that

there was incised wound on her stomach in the size of 07 x 2.5

cm and her intestines had come out. He also noticed one

lacerated wound on the middle of the head in the size of 05 x .5

cm caused by hard and blunt object. Injury on the stomach,

according to this witness, was grievous in nature. This witness

has also stated that the injuries noticed by him could have been

caused by the knife produced before him for examination. This

witness has further stated that looking to the precarious condition

of the injured she was referred to Medical College, Raipur for

proper treatment.

10.Having thus seen the evidence of the important witnesses such

as the victim herself, Bhagwati (PW-1) whom the injured made a

disclosure in the hospital that her husband had dealt knife blows

to her, Narendra yadav (PW-3) and Haradhan (PW-7)-both seizure

witnesses, and the doctor (PW-8), this Court has no hesitation to

say that the findings recorded by the Court below holding the

accused/appellant guilty under Section 307 IPC are based on due

appreciation of the evidence on record and therefore, no

interference by this Court is required.

11. As regards sentence, looking to the fact that out of the sentence

imposed of 5 years, the accused appellant has already remained

inside for more than 4 years, that the accused/appellant as of

now appears to be in his late sixties and that he has already

suffered the long drawn prosecution right from the occurence,

this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met

if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already

undergone. Order accordingly.

12. The accused/appellant is directed to be set free forthwith if not

required in any other case.

13. Appeal is thus allowed in part with the observation and to the

extent indicated above.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

Judge Jyotishi