Chattisgarh High Court
Radhelal Dhruv vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 June, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
PATEL 2025:CGHC:27202
PATEL Date:
2025.06.25
17:06:15
+0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 546 of 2024
• Radhelal Dhruv S/o Dukhe Singh Dhruv, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Village Bhutenga, Nawapara, P.S.- Gariyaband, District-
Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
24/06/2025
1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.2024 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District
Gariyaband (C.G.), in Session Case No. 20/2022 whereby the
learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the
appellant as under :
Conviction Sentence
U/s 307 of IPC, R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 2,000/-
1860 in default of payment of fine amount
additional R.I. for 06 months.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Shravan Kumar
Kunjam lodged an oral complaint at the Gariaband Police
Station stating that on 18.01.2022 at about 11:00-12:00 Pm,
his father, Gokul Ram Kunjam, was sleeping at their under-
construction house. Meanwhile, the accused Radhelal Dhruv,
with the intention of committing murder, attacked Gokul Ram
kunjam with a "tangia" (axe) on his chest and face, causing
serious injuries, and then fled the scene. When Shravan kumar
returned home from the field about 11:00 pm, he found his
father lying in a pool of blood. Upon inquiry, his father informed
him that Radhelal Dhruv (son-in-law) had attacked him with a
"tangia" and fled. Thereafter, the injured was taken to the
District Hospital Gariaband, for treatment, thereafter he was
referred to Raipur for further treatment. After due procedure
and investigation charge sheet was filed against the present
appellant.
3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 13 witnesses and 33 documents. The
statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances
appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false
implication in the case.
4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 21.02.2024, learned Sessions
Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as
mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present
appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits he is not pressing the
appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment
and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof
only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place
18.01.2022, and thereby about 3 years 5 months have rolled by
since then. The appellant has already remained in jail for about
3 years 5 months and his children are not receiving adequate
care and attention, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would
be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting
the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on
behalf of the appellant.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
on record including the impugned judgment.
8. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of
the witnesses Shrawan Kumar (PW-1), Gokul Ram (PW-5),
Ishwari Dhruv (Pw-8), Dr. Shyam Kishore Sahu (PW-9), Neha
Uikey (PW10), Tikaram Dhruv (PW-11), Satish Sahu (PW-12)
and Dr. Lokesh Patel (PW-12), establish the involvement of the
accused/appellant in the crime in question beyond reasonable
doubt. Thus, considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, this Court does not see any illegality in the findings
recorded by the trial Court as regards conviction of the
appellant under Section 307 of IPC, 1860.
9. In the instant case, the appellant has already remained in jail
for about 3 years 5 months, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the
appellant is the son-in-law of the victim. The dispute revolves
around the residence of the appellant's wife, who is the victim's
daughter, i.e., whether she would reside with her husband
(appellant) or with her parents. However, currently, the wife
resides in house of appellant and takes care of their children.
The offence was committed in the year 2022 i.e. about more
than 3 years 5 months ago, therefore, this court is of the
opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is
sentenced to the period already undergone by him while keeping
the fine amount with default stipulation as imposed by the Trial
Court intact.
10. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining
the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC, his jail
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e.,
3 years 5 months instead of R.I. for 10 years. However, the fine
amount of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation imposed by the
Trial Court shall remain intact.
11. The appellant is in jail. If the appellant has deposited the
imposed fine amount, he shall be released forthwith if not
require to be detained in any other case/s.
12. Record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be
sent forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Sourabh P.
