Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ishwar Singh And Ors on 11 May, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 1072 of 2008
1. Ishwar Singh S/o Toran Singh Thakur, Aged about 51
years.
2. Rajendra Singh S/o Ishwar Singh, Aged about 22
years.
3. Munni Bai @ Devantin Bai W/o Ishwar Singh, Aged
about 46 years.
4. Rajkumar S/o Ishwar Singh Thakur, Aged about 26
years.
All are residents of Village Cheenu Nawagaon, Thana
Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through the District
Magistrate, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
Respondent
For Appellants : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate
For State : Mr. Sameer Uraon, G.A.
Acquittal Appeal No. 129 of 2010
1. State of Chhattisgarh through the District
Magistrate, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
Appellant
2
Versus
1. Ishwar Singh S/o Toran Singh Thakur, Aged about 51
years.
2. Rajendra Singh S/o Ishwar Singh, Aged about 22
years.
3. Munni Bai @ Devantin Bai W/o Ishwar Singh, Aged
about 46 years.
4. Rajkumar S/o Ishwar Singh Thakur, Aged about 26
years.
All are residents of Village Chinoo Nawagaon, P.S.
Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
Respondents
For Appellant/State: Mr. Sameer Uraon, G.A.
For Respondent : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
11/05/2022
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Since both of these appeals have arisen out of a
common judgment dated 04/12/2008 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in Sessions
Trial No. 31/07, therefore, they have been heard
together and are being decided by this common
judgment.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 1072/2008 has been preferred by
the accused persons against their conviction for
offence punishable under Section 324 read with
Section 34 of IPC and the sentence awarded
accordingly which comprises of R.I. for two years
and fine of Rs. 500/ in default of payment of fine
to undergo S.I. for 30 days and Acquittal Appeal
No. 129/2010 has been preferred by the State
against the acquittal of the respondents/accused
persons from offence under Section 307 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on
07/06/2007 at about 07:30 PM, the accused persons,
with the common intention of causing death of the
applicant Mani Singh (P.W.1), assaulted him with
basula and lathi by which he suffered grievous
injuries which were sufficient to cause death and
they thereby committed the aforesaid offence.
4. Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that
on 07/06/2007 at about 07:00 PM, applicant Mani
Singh was returning to his house from Majgaon when
accused Ishwar Singh, who was standing in front of
his house with his family/other accused persons,
attacked the applicant with basula and lathi on his
head due to which blood started oozing from his
head and he became unconscious. The accused
persons, taking the applicant Mani Singh, to be
dead left him and ran away. The said incident was
witnessed by Ghasiram Sahu (P.W.7), Pawan Kumar
(P.W.10) and Sukhnandan (P.W.6). Thereafter, the
applicant reported the incident at Mungeli Police
Station and lodged the First Information Report
(Ex. P/1) pursuant to which Police took the
applicant for medical examination and after his
primary medical examination, the applicant was
taken to SIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for rest of the
treatment. Thereafter, Police reached the spot and
prepared Nazri Naksha (Ex. P/8) and seized the
clothes of the applicant as well as basula and
lathi from the accused persons vide Ex. P/2 to P/6.
The statements of the witnesses were recorded and
after due investigation, the accused persons were
arrested and chargesheeted for offence punishable
under Sections 307/34 of IPC which was submitted to
the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli
wherein the case was registered and it was
committed to the Court of Session Judge, Mungeli
for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
The accused persons abjured their guilt and entered
into defence.
5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution
examined as many as 11 witnesses and brought into
record 23 documents. Statements of the accused
persons were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC
wherein they denied guilt and examined two
witnesses in their defence.
6. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the
accused persons for offence punishable under
Section 307 read with Section 34 of CPC, however,
convicted them for offence punishable under Section
324 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them
as aforesaid.
7. Mrs. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel for the
accused persons, would submit that the trial Court
is absolutely unjustified in convicting the accused
persons for offence punishable under Sections 324
read with Section 34 of IPC as there are a number
of cases pending against the applicant Mani Singh
lodged by the accused persons and since the
applicant did not agree with the accused persons to
enter into compromise, First Information Report
(Ex. P/1) has been lodged by the applicant falsely
implicating the accused persons in the crime in
question. In alternative, she would submit that
offence under Section 324 of IPC is punishable with
imprisonment for three years or fine or both and
even looking to the nature of the dispute, they be
released on probation under Section 3 of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 read with Section
360 of CrPC.
8. Mr. Sameer Uraon, learned State counsel, would
submit that looking to the nature of the injuries
suffered by the applicant Mani Singh, the
conviction of the accused persons for offence
punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34
of IPC deserves to be converted to Section 307 of
IPC and the criminal appeal preferred by the
accused persons deserves to be dismissed.
9. At this stage, Mrs. Indira Tripathi, learned
counsel for the accused persons, would again submit
that the argument raised by the State that looking
to the nature of the injuries suffered by the
applicant Mani Singh, the conviction of the accused
persons ought to be converted to Section 307 of IPC
deserves to be rejected as there is a specific
finding recorded by the trial Court that the
injuries suffered by the applicant Mani Singh are
simple in nature and they were not sufficient to
cause death, as such, the acquittal appeal deserves
to be dismissed.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,
considered their rival submissions made herein
above and went through the records with utmost
circumspection.
11. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence on record, has clearly
recorded a finding that the applicant Mani Singh
(P.W.1) has suffered simple injuries on the basis
of evidence of Dr. Smt. Vibha Sindur (P.W.9) and
the statement of applicant's wife Lachchhan Bai
(P.W.5) and also on the basis of medico legal
report (Ex. P/12) which clearly states that the
applicant suffered injuries in his head, shoulder
and chest. As per the statement of Dr. Smt. Vibha
Sindur (P.W.9), the applicant was given primary
medical treatment by her and thereafter, she
referred him for further treatment to Surgical
Specialist, SIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, but
thereafter, bedhead ticket, xray report and other
treatment report has not been filed and the Doctors
who have treated the applicant have also not been
examined and the injuries suffered by the applicant
are though caused by sharp and hard objects, but
the said injuries were not sufficient to cause
death.
12. A careful perusal of the record would show that
though the applicant Mani Singh (P.W.1) has been
subjected to C.T. Scan for the injury suffered by
him in head and his xrays have also been done, but
that has not been proved by examining the expert
who has conducted C.T. Scan and Xray though it is
available on original record. A careful perusal of
the original record would show that in the C.T.
Scan, it has been recorded by the radiologist that
findings of the C.T. Scan are suggestive of simple
injury and no bone injury was found. Similarly, the
applicant Mani Singh (P.W.1) was also subjected to
Xray of head and chest, but no boney injury was
found. As such, the Xray report as well as the
C.T. Scan report would show that no boney injury
was detected though the said reports were not
brought on record by proving them, but since it is
available on original record and issued by a
Government Hospital, it can be looked into by this
Court while hearing the appeals. We are of the
considered opinion that the finding of learned
trial Court that the injuries suffered by the
applicant were simple in nature based upon the
statement of Dr. Smt. Vibha Sindur (P.W. 9) is a
finding of fact based on evidence available on
record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to
record. Likewise, the finding of the trial Court
that the injuries suffered by the appellant were
not sufficient to cause death as recorded in
paragraph 12 of the judgment is also correct and on
the basis of the said findings, learned trial Court
has rightly convicted the accused persons for
offence punishable under Section 324 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
13. Not only this, learned trial Court has further
recorded the finding in paragraph 23 of the
judgment that there was no intent and knowledge on
the part of the accused persons to cause death of
the applicant or that the injuries caused by them
would likely cause his death. In the considered
opinion of this Court, learned trial Court is
absolutely justified in recording the finding that
there was no knowledge or intention on the part of
the accused persons to cause death of the
applicant, as such, the accused persons have
rightly been acquitted from the offence punishable
under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.
14. The challenge to the conviction of the accused
persons for offence under Section 324 read with
Section 34 of IPC has been made in the
CRA/1072/2008 preferred by the accused persons, but
it is quite apparent from the record that though
the applicant Mani Singh (P.W.1) suffered simple
injuries but the accused persons were armed with
deadly weapons i.e. basula and lathi and in that
view of the matter, learned trial Court is
absolutely justified in holding that offence under
Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC is made out
against the accused persons, as such, the
conviction of the accused persons under Section 324
read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby affirmed.
15. At this stage, learned counsel for the accused
persons would submit that the accused persons have
already been in jail from 26/07/2017 to 29/07/2017
and they have already paid fine of Rs. 500/ each,
therefore, leniency should be observed and they be
sentenced for the period already undergone.
16. Considering that the accused persons have already
suffered jail sentence for a period of 4 days i.e.
from 26/07/2017 to 29/07/2017, the jail sentence
awarded to the accused persons for two years except
for the 4 days already suffered is hereby set aside
and they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/
each from which the fine amount of Rs.500/ shall
be deducted if it has already been paid by them and
in default of payment of fine amount, they will be
sentenced to 30 days S.I. The fine amount shall be
deposited by the accused persons within 3 months.
This sentence of fine is in addition to four days
of jail sentence already undergone.
17. Accordingly, CRA/1072/2008 is partly allowed to the
extent indicated hereinabove and ACQA/129/2010 is
hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.
Sd/ Sd/
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
Harneet
