Chattisgarh High Court
Manohar Gond vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 April, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:18618
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 571 of 2009
Manohar Gond S/o Raghunandan Gond @ Shivnandan, aged about 35
years, R/o Kuppa, PS Odgi, Distt. Surguja (CG)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Surguja, Police
Station - Odgi, Distt. Sarguja (CG)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate.
For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Judgment On Board
24/04/2025
The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and
validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
10.6.2009 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Surajpur,
Distt. Surguja (CG) in ST No.332/2008 whereby the appellant stands
convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 307 of Indian Penal RI for 10 years, pay a fine of
Code. Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to
suffer additional RI for 03 months.
Under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms RI for 01 year, pay a fine of
Act. Rs.500/- and in default thereof to
suffer additional RI for 01 month.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 22.9.2008 at around 7
am while the complainant Bhaiyram Gond was ploughing the
government land situated at the west side of his house, at that time his
cousin i.e. accused/appellant Manohar on account of there being some
land dispute reached there armed with a sword and with intention to
commit his murder assaulted with sword on his neck. However, as the
complainant ducked down, the sword hit dorsum region of left foot. He
also suffered injury over left leg and toe as also on the palmer aspect
of left hand. Hearing the screams of the complainant, his wife
Fuleshwari and daughter Geeta came and separated them. After the
incident Ramlakhan Singh and Surendra Dev Singh also reached the
spot and the complainant narrated the incident to them. The
complainant was taken to hospital for treatment. On the basis of report
to the above effect, offence under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 of
the Arms Act was registered against the accused at Police Station -
Odgi, Distt. Surguja.
03. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared,
statements of the witnesses were recorded, bloodstained and plain soil
as also plastic slippers of the complainant were seized from the place
of occurrence. Memorandum of the accused was recorded which led to
recovery of bloodstained sword. The seized articles were sent to FSL
for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, the police
filed charge sheet against the accused persons before the concerned
jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 of
the Arms Act.
04. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 307 of IPC
and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act against accused which were
abjured by him and he prayed for trial.
05. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 13
witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313
of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances
appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and
false implication. However, no evidence was adduced in defence.
06. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1
of this judgment. Hence this appeal.
07. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. Learned
trial Court did not appreciate the contradiction and omission in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses. It has also not appreciated
the fact that PW-2 Fuleshwari, PW-3 Geeta and PW-4 Ramlakhan are
interested witnesses in this case and as such, their evidence has to be
evaluated with great care and caution. It has come in the evidence that
due to some land dispute between the parties, the complainant was
having animosity against accused and his family. Even otherwise,
looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant and the
manner in which the incident took place, the accused/appellant's
conviction under Section 307 of IPC is not sustainable and at the most,
he can be held guilty under Section 325 of IPC and in view of the fact
that he has remained in jail for more than 2 years and 8 months, he
was on bail during pendency of this appeal and did not misuse the
liberty, his jail sentence thereunder may be reduced to the period
already undergone.
Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Subhash Chander Bansal Vs. Gian
Chand and others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 291.
08. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the
contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon
minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly
convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment
which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present
appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.
09. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
10. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that appellant was
charged under Section 307 of IPC and 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act for
attempting to commit murder of the complainant Bhaiyalal by inflicting
injury with a sword, and after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced him under the
aforesaid sections as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
11. PW-1 Bhaiyram states that on the date of incident while he was
ploughing the field, the accused/appellant came there with sword and
assaulted on him which hit his left dorsum region of the foot as he
ducked down to save his neck.
12. PW-2 Fuleshwari, PW-3 Geeta and PW-4 Ramlakhan Singh
have supported the statement of the complainant and stated that it is
the accused/appellant who assaulted on the complainant with sword.
PW-5 Surendra Dev also states that hearing the cries of the
complainant and his wife, he rushed to the spot and saw that the
complainant was lying on the ground with injury in his leg and the
accused was running towards his house.
13. PW-10 Dr. SN Kujur medically examined the complainant
Bhaiyaram on 22.9.2008 and found five incised wounds on anterior
lateral aspect of left foot extending upto planter region, middle of left
clavicle, palmer aspect of left middle finger and middle part, palmer
aspect of left ring finger and root of left little finger. He states that injury
No.1 is grievous in nature whereas other injuries are simple in nature.
He also advised for x-ray of left foot. His medical report is Ex.P/10. He
also examined the weapon of offence seized from the accused and
opined that the injuries suffered by the victim could be caused by this
weapon vide Ex.P/12.
14. PW-11 Dr. JK Bhutani states that upon x-ray being done he
found that 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal bones of left foot were fractured
vide Ex.P/13. In cross-examination he states that he did not notice any
fracture on the shoulder, therefore, did not mention about examination
of the shoulder in his report.
15. In view of the aforesaid unrebutted ocular and medical evidence
it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is the
accused/appellant who assaulted on the complainant with a sword
which hit his left foot and palmer region and he suffered injuries as
mentioned above. As per PW-10 Dr. SN Kujur only injury No.1 was
grievous in nature and PW-11 Dr. JK Bhutani also found that 3 rd, 4th
and 5th metatarsal bones of left foot were fractured. Thus, looking to the
manner in which the incident took place, the weapon used in making
assault, the nature and extent of injuries suffered by the complainant,
this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court was not justified
in holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 307 of IPC and
the act committed by him makes him liable for conviction under Section
326 of IPC. Being so, conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of
IPC deserves to be altered to Section 326 of IPC. However, looking to
the evidence of the memorandum and seizure witnesses namely PW-4
Ramlakhan Singh and PW-5 Surendra Dev coupled with the evidence
of Investigating Officer RN Yadav (PW-13) and size of the weapon
used by the accused without any licence; this Court finds no illegality or
infirmity in his conviction under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act
recorded by the learned trial Court.
16. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, the fact that the incident took place in the year 2008, at the
time of incident the accused was 35 years of age and at present must
be of 52 years; he was on bail during pendency of this appeal and
never misused the liberty granted to him; he has remained in jail for
more than 2 years and 8 months, this Court is of the opinion that no
fruitful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail at this
stage and ends of justice would be met if he is sentenced under
Section 326 of IPC to the period already undergone by him and
directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with default sentence of 02 months'
RI.
17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining
conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 25 (1-B) of the
Arms Act , his conviction under Section 307 of IPC is altered to Section
326 of IPC and he is awarded jail sentence thereunder to the period
already undergone by him. He shall also pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in
default thereof shall suffer additional RI for two months. The fine
amount, if any, deposited under Section 307 of IPC shall be adjusted
accordingly. He is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall
continue for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of
Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Digitally
Sd/
signed by
MOHD
MOHD AKHTAR
AKHTAR KHAN
KHAN Date:
2025.04.26
10:19:48
(Rajani Dubey)
+0530
Judge
Khan
