Ramesh @ Belar Kumar Netam vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1300 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Ramesh @ Belar Kumar Netam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 January, 2025

Author: Rajani Dubey

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                     1




                                                    2025:CGHC:3427


                                                                    NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                            CRA No. 69 of 2022

Ramesh @ Belar Kumar Netam S/o Kanwal Singh Netam aged about 37
years, R/o Village Behradih, Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband
(C.G.)
                                                         ...Appellant
                                                            (In Jail)


                                  versus


State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband
(C.G.)
                                                          ... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent       :   Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.


                   Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
                           Judgment on Board
20.01.2025

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arising out of a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 62/2019, wherein the appellant is convicted and sentenced as under:-

                     Conviction                        Sentence
           U/S 307 of IPC             R.I. for 10 years with fine amount
                                      of Rs. 1000/- and in default of
                                      payment     of    fine   to    undergo
                                      additional S.I. for 01 year.

2. Brief facts of the case is that the accused Ramesh and the injured

Tijelal were having subsisting enmity between them and earlier

they had altercations regarding liquor drinking. On 12.06.2019, the

injured Tijelal came out of bath and was wiping himself and at that

time, he told the accused that you should bring home Sister-in-law,

to which the accused replied why do you care whether I bring her

or not and moreover, who are you to even speak regarding this

and thereby, the accused got enraged, went inside his house

bought bow and arrow with an intention to kill Tijelal, he shot an

arrow from his house to his middle brother Tijelal, who was

standing at courtyard and the arrow got stuck on his left side of

vest. The injured Tijelal went for seeking help from his family

members namely Ishwar Netam and Ramsingh Netam, to which

they came for helping him and admitted him at Government

Hospital, Mainpur and on being suggested by the Doctor of

Mainpur, he was taken immediately to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur.

Thereafter, on being informed by the complainant Roshan Netam

offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC was leveled against

him vide F.I.R Ex. P/15. The spot map of the place of the incident

was prepared in front of the witnesses vide Ex. P/16 and the

injured Tijelal was sent to Community Health Center Mainpur for

his medical examination after filing the medical examination form

vide Ex. P/10-A and his medical report is obtained vide Ex. P/10.

The memorandum statement of the accused/appellant was

recorded vide Ex. P/02 in front of the witnesses. Seizure of the

bow was made on the basis of the memorandum statement and its

seizure letter is Ex. P/03. During investigation, the accused was

found to have committed the crime and he was arrested as per

arrest warrant Ex. P/08 and regarding his custody they intimated

to his family members vide Ex. P/23. On being submitted by the

injured, his clothes were seized and its seizure is Ex. P/04. After

completion of the due and necessary investigation, the charge-

sheet was filed against the accused person/appellant before the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband (C.G.) and the case was

later committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Gariyaband (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 62/2019 and the accused

person/appellant was put to trial for the offence punishable under

Section 307 of IPC, whereby the accused person/appellant

abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.

3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses to prove its case against the accused person/appellant. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.

4. Learned trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record by the impugned judgment convicted the accused/appellant under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the inaugural paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal filed by the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2021 is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case, therefore it is liable to be set aside. The judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to the facts, evidence and law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The finding given by the learned trial Court against the appellant is perverse and contrary to evidence on record. The learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant only on the basis of assumption and presumption. The prosecution case is dependent upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness in relation to the said incident and no prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story. So, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradiction and omission in the statement/deposition of the prosecution witnesses. So, impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. He further submits that it is clear from the statement of both the Doctors that the offence under Section 307 is not made out against the appellant and only offence under Section 324 of IPC is made out against the appellant. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the ingredients of Section 307 of IPC, as the same is not proved, so the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside.

Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, considering the fact that the incident took

place in the year 2019, this appeal is pending since 2022, The appellant is now aged more than 43 years; he has remained in jail for more than 05 years, so in the interest of justice the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

6. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'be Apex Court's judgment dated 11.04.2023 passed in CRA No. 1078/2023 in the case of Panchram versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 394.

7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State strongly opposes the prayer of the appellant, supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 307 of IPC. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

8. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.

9. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court has framed charges against the accused/appellant under Section 307 of IPC. It is further clear from the charge and the medical report that the injured Tijelal sustained injury on his left side of vest.

10. Tijelal Netam (PW-06) stated that on the date of incident, he asked the accused as to why he was not going to see his wife who got her thumb injured. The accused/appellant shot him with bow and arrow and the arrow pierced his vest. (PW-03) Dr. Sudhanshu Patel, stated that he examined the injured Tijelal and found one incised wound in his vest and nature of injury is grievous and he

referred him for District Hospital, Gariaband and he gave his report vide Ex. P/10. On being asked by the query report, he answered that had if not Tijelal immediately treated, he would have died. The other Dr. Sandeep Chandarakar (PW-11) stated that on 13.06.2019 Tijelal was admitted in B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur. He was operated and after treatment he was discharged on 27.07.2019. He also opined that the injuries were grievous in nature and had if not Tijelal immediately treated, he would have died, the bedhead ticket is Ex. P/19. In his cross-examination he admitted that operation and treatment was given by Dr. Priyansh Pandey and Dr. Arvind Kumar, and he identified their signatures.

11. (PW-01) Ishwar Singh Netam, (PW-05) Ram Netam, (PW-07) Roshan Netam & (PW-08) Shivlal Netam have stated that they saw injuries of Tijelal and as per Tijelal the accused shot him by arrow. The injured Tijelal remained firm in his cross-examination, as such it is proved that on the date of incident the accused/appellant shot Tijelal using arrow and, as such he sustained injuries.

12. This Court in the matter of Panchram (supra) reported in CRA No. 1078 of 2023 in the judgment dated 11.04.2023 held in paragraphs 07 & 08 which reads as under:-

"07. With the aforesid evidence on record and the kind of weapon used, in our view the offence will not fall within Section 307 I.P.C. From the reasons for fights as are emerging on record, it doesn't seem to be pre-planned act. It, at the most, can fall within the four corners of Section 326 IPC as a sharp-edged weapon was used. The injuries were not caused with an intention to cause death and were not sufficient to cause death. Hence, in our view the conviction of the appellant with respect Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained however the offence under Section 326 IPC is

made out.

08. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out that the appellant had already undergone actual sentence of 11 months and 24 days. Considering the fact that the incident had taken place about 23/24 years ago, in our view the sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine imposed is sustained. In Case of non-deposit of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month."

13. In the light of above judgment and in the present case also, by looking to the statement of both the Doctors and medical report of Tijelal, it is clear that Tijelal sustained injuries on his vest which is not a vital part of the body and it is further clear that Doctors have only supported that had if he not treated, he would have died. It is also clear from the Bed Head Ticket that injured Tijelal was admitted in hospital for more than 20 days. So, the ingredients of offence under Section 307 is not proved against the appellant and it is altered/converted into Section 326 of IPC.

14. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2019 and this appeal is pending since 2022. The appellant is now aged more than 43 years; and he has remained in jail for more than 05 years, therefore, his sentence under the aforesaid section is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence imposed by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.

16. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him.

17. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Uttej