Chattisgarh High Court
Shyam Lal Dhuri vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 January, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:4944
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 950 of 2005
Shyam Lal, S/o Chaitram @ Bunti Dhuri, aged about 26 years, R/o
Village-Kormi, PS Chakarbhata, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through PS Chakarbhata, Distt. Bilaspur (CG)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate.
For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Judgment On Board
28/01/2025
The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and
validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
30.11.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in ST No.217/2005
whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 323 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo RI for six months and pay a fine of Rs.500/- or
else to suffer additional one month's RI.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.5.2005 at around
10.30 pm while the complainant Ramprasad (PW-1) was washing his
hands and feet in the courtyard, the accused/appellant came from
behind and assaulted him on his head, back and arm with a sharp
edged weapon sword. Hearing the screams of the complainant, his
wife Kanchan Bai came out of the house and seeing her, the accused
fled from there with sword. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to
the hospital and FIR was lodged against the accused. He remained
hospitalized in CIMS, Bilaspur from 16.5.2005 to 23.5.2005. During
investigation, bloodstains clothes of the complainant were seized,
statements of the witnesses were recorded and on the memorandum
of the accused the weapon of offence knife was seized, spot map was
prepared, the seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical
examination and after completing the usual investigation, charge sheet
under Section 307 of IPC was filed against the accused followed by
framing of charge accordingly by learned trial court, to which the
accused abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.
03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 8
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 witness was examined by him in
defence.
04. 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.
05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. The
statements of PW-1 Ramprasad and PW-2 Kanchan Bai do not support
the prosecution case and their evidence are contrary to the medical
evidence of PW-7 Dr. Dharmendra Kumar and PW-8 Dr. George M.
Xaxa. According to the complainant and his wife, the complainant was
assaulted with sword whereas the medical evidence shows that he was
caused injuries by hard and blunt object. PW-1 & PW-2 have stated
that at the time of incident it was dark and the appellant assaulted with
sword. Their statement is not reliable because if it was dark,
identification of the assailant was not possible and secondly, the police
seized a knife on the memorandum of the appellant and not sword.
This apart, there is also no motive attributed to the appellant for
commission of the alleged crime. The FIR was lodged with a delay of
11 days after the incident without any proper explanation. Thus, in view
of above, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case
against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court
merely on the basis of conjecture and surmises held the appellant guilt
under Section 323 of IPC.
Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that if this
ultimately comes to the conclusion that conviction of the appellant is
proper, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case giving
rise to the incident which took place in the year 2005, the appeal is
pending since 2005, he was on bail during trial and even during
pendency of this appeal but never misused the liberty while on bail, his
jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
06. 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.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant
was charged under Section 307 of IPC and after appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence, learned trial Court while acquitting him of
the said charge, convicted and sentenced him under Section 323 of
IPC as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment
09. PW-1 Ramprasad, complainant, states that on the date of
incident while he was washing his hands and feet in front of his house,
the accused/appellant came out of the house of Bhagwati (sister of the
complainant) and assaulted him from behind with sword on his
shoulder and when he turned back, the accused made a second attack
which hit his head. Thereafter, the accused assaulted on his left arm
and back also. In cross-examination he remained firm on his
statement.
10. PW-2 Kanchan Bai, wife of the injured complainant, also
supported the prosecution case and stated that hearing the scream of
her husband she came out of the house and saw the accused assault
her husband with a sword. When she abused him, he ran away from
there with sword leaving his bicycle. Thereafter, she called out her son
Lalit and then with the help of her brother-in-law Doojram and others
her husband was admitted in hospital where he remained for nine
days. PW-3 Lalit Kumar also supported the prosecution case and
stated that hearing the scream of her mother when he came out he
saw the accused running away with sword. Both these witnesses
remained firm in their cross-examination and defence could not elicit
anything from them to discredit their evidence.
11. PW-7 Dr. Dharmendra Kumar examined injured Ramprasad on
16.5.2005 and noticed lacerated wound on skull, fracture on left
forearm and lacerated wound on the right shoulder. In his opinion, the
said injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. He advised for x-
ray of skull and hand and CT scan of the skull. He proved his report
Ex.P/13. However, PW-8 Dr. George M. Xaxa who conducted x-ray of
the injured, did not find any fracture. He proved his report Ex.P/15.
12. Close scrutiny of the evidence on record makes it clear that it is
the accused/appellant who assaulted the injured with a sharp edged
weapon as a result of which he sustained injuries as mentioned in
Ex.P/13. The injured (PW-1) has categorically stated as to the manner
in which he was assaulted by the accused. It is well settled that the
evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value and
unless compelling reasons exist, his/her statement is not to be
discarded lightly. The evidence of an injured witness cannot be
doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor
contradictions. In this case, the evidence of the injured Ramprasad is
duly supported by the evidence of his wife and son as also from the
medial evidence. There is noting on record to suggest that the injured
had any animosity or enmity with the accused for his false implication
in this case. Learned trial Court upon proper appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence on record rightly came to the conclusion that
offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out against the accused
and thus acquitted him of the said charge and looking to the nature of
injuries held him guilty under Section 323 of IPC. The findings recorded
by the learned trial Court are based proper appreciation of the overall
evidence on record and in accordance with law. Being so, no
interference is required in the said findings and the same are hereby
affirmed.
13. As regards sentence, considering the fact that the incident
occurred in the year 2005, the appeal is also pending since 2005; the
appellant was on bail during trial as well as during pendency of this
appeal and nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that he
ever misused the liberty so granted and he has remained in jail for four
days, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be
served in sending him back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice
would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by
him.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining
conviction of the appellant under Section 323 of IPC, his jail sentence
is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine
imposed on him by the learned trial Court with default sentence shall
remain intact. He is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds
shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view
of provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.
Sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
Digitally
MOHD signed by
Judge
AKHTAR MOHD
KHAN AKHTAR
KHAN
Khan
