Chattisgarh High Court
Narayan Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 August, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 107 of 2009
Narayan Prashad, S/o Poshan Lal Sahu, aged about 22 years, R/o. Village -
Arang, Thana Arang, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through - District Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Priyamvadha Singh, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
12-08-2022
1. This criminal revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned
12th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Criminal
Appeal No.156 of 2008 dated 6.2.2009, whereby the applicant has been
convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.200/-.
2. The applicant was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections
294, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC on the allegation that
on 25.8.2005, at about 7:00 p.m. in village Samoda, police station
Aarang, District Raipur, the present applicant alongwith one Makhan Lal
Sahu abused complainant - Manharan Lal Sahu using filthy language
and assaulted him by means of wooden club. The matter was reported
to the police station vide Annexure-P/1 and the complainant was taken
to the hospital for medical examination.
3. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294 and 325 of the
IPC against the present applicant and co-accused.
4. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to prove the case and exhibited
6 documents. The applicant abjured the charges.
5. Learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence acquitted the
co-accused from the charges under Sections 294 and 323 of the IPC
and the present applicant was acquitted from charges under Section
294 of the IPC but he was convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 323 of the IPC and he was sentenced to undergo RI for 1 month
and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple
imprisonment for 7 days.
6. The judgment passed in Criminal Case No.587 of 2008 dated 17.6.2008
was challenged before the learned Sessions Court and Sessions Court
remitted back the matter to reconsider the medical report according to
which, there was fracture of tibia and fibula in the left leg of the
complainant.
7. Learned trial Court appreciated the medical evidence and convicted the
applicant under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo
RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.200/-. Against which, the appeal was
preferred before the learned Sessions Court and vide judgment dated
6.2.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2008, judgment of conviction
and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court has been affirmed.
8. Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the evidence of doctor does not establish that there was fracture in the
left leg of the complainant as in cross-examination, the doctor has
admitted this fact that the number mentioned in the x-ray report is
different and he is not sure that x-ray film belongs to the complainant.
He further submits that earlier, the applicant was convicted under
Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one month and
later on, same has been modified. He also submits that the applicant
has remained in jail for a period of one month and 9 days and the
incident had taken place in the year 2005 at that time, the applicant was
aged about 28 years. Learned counsel for the applicant prays to set
aside the order of conviction and sentence and in alternative, he also
prays to reduce the sentence for period the applicant has remained in
jail, which is 1 month and 9 days.
9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the contentions
raised by the applicant and submits that there was a fracture and
therefore, the applicant was rightly convicted under Section 325 of the
IPC and there is no scope of interference by this Court in the conviction
recorded and affirmed by the two Courts below.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. Complainant - Manharan Lal Sahu (PW-1) has stated in the deposition
that on the date of incident, he was assaulted by the wooden club by the
present applicant and he sustained grievous injury on his leg. Later on,
it was detected by the doctor that there was fracture of tibia and fibula of
the left leg. This fact has not been disputed by the applicant. From the
medical report, it is clear that there was fracture of left tibia and fibula of
a person but from the evidence of doctor, it is not clear that it was a
x-ray film and report of the complainant as doctor has his own doubts on
the number mentioned over the x-ray film, therefore, it has not been
established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that there was
any fracture of left leg of the complainant. Further, considering the fact
that at the time of incident, the applicant was aged about 28 years,
incident had taken place in the year 2005 and further, considering the
fact that the applicant remain in jail for 39 days. In absence of sufficient
medical evidence, it is not established by the prosecution that there was
any fracture caused by the applicant to the complainant, therefore,
ingredients of Section 325 of the IPC have not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt against the applicant and thus, the applicant is
acquitted from the charges of Section 325 of IPC. The conviction
recorded under Section 325 of the IPC is modified to Section 323 of the
IPC. Earlier, the applicant was convicted under Section 323 of the IPC
and sentenced to undergo RI for one month and from the records, it
appears that the applicant has remained in jail for 39 days, therefore,
there is no need to send him back to the jail as he has already
undergone 39 days.
12. Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
