Chattisgarh High Court
Krishna Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:12301
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1777 of 2024
1 - Krishna Sahu S/o Samodhi Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Nava-
gaon Temri, P.S. - City Kotwali, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - City Kotwali, Mungeli,
District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
10/03/2025
1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the
appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
19.09.2024 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli
(C.G.), in Session Trial No. 06/2023, whereby the appellant has been con-
victed and sentenced as follows:-
Convicted under Sec- Sentenced to
tions
294 of the Indian Penal S.I. for 3 months
Code, 1860
323 of the Indian Penal S.I. for 06-06 months
Code, 1860
506 Part-II of the In- S.I. for 02 years
dian Penal Code, 1860
307 of the Indian Penal S.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 100/- and in
Code, 1860 default of payment of fine, additional S.I.
for one month
All the sentences will run concurrently
2. Briefly stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal are that
on 29.10.2022, the offence took place on account of hot altercation with
respect to use of Government Land situated in front of the farming land of
the victims. The present appellant was temporarily using the said land for
dumping his agriculture produce, whereas, victims, whose fame is adjacent
to the government land, were restraining him from using the land. The
appellant started using abusive languages and assaulted Biram Bai on her
leg with the help of stick and also assaulted Anita Sahu, in between, Jalesh
Sahu intervened between them who also sustained injury over his head. The
matter was reported to the Police in the Police Station Mungeli by the
complaints which led to registration of FIR bearing crime No. 619/2022.
After completing the investigation related procedural formalities, the charge-
sheet was filed by the Police under Section 307, 294 and 506-II (3 times) of
IPC .
3. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in
question, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of
the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded in which
he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. Defence
however has examined no witnesses in support of its case.
4. After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record
including the evidence of the witnesses, learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mungeli in S.T. No. 06/2023 has convicted and sentenced the
accused/appellant as described in paragraph No. 1 of this judgment. Hence
this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that presently the appellant is
aged about 63 years old. Further, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove
its case under Section 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. He further
submits that as there was no intention on the part of the accused/appellant
to cause injury to the victim, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made
out and at the most act of the accused/appellant may fall either under
Section 325 or 326 IPC. He submits that seizure witnesses of alleged
weapon used, have not supported the case of prosecution, therefore, it
becomes doubtful and the appellants may be acquitted by extending benefit
of doubt. Ultimately, he submits that in the event the conviction of the
appellant is upheld, looking to the evidence, injury sustained and the overt
act, the sentence which has been awarded appears to be irrational and
requires reduction. Therefore, the sentence awarded may be reduced to
period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount and awarding
compensation to the injured. In support of his submissions, he placed
reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Sivamani and Anr. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police in
CRA No. 3619 of 2023.
6. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State supports the judgment
impugned and submits that taking into consideration the statements of the
injured (PW-5) and Dr. J.P. Kaushik (PW-13) which gets corroboration from
the testimony of other independent witnesses, the findings recorded by the
Additional Sessions Judge holding the accused/appellant guilty under
Section 307, 294, 323 and 506-II IPC being based on proper appreciation of
the evidence on record are fully justified and do not call for any interference
in this appeal.
7. Heard counsel for the parties at length and went through the evidence on
record with utmost care and caution.
8. From the evidence of Vishnu Sahu (PW-2) it is apparent that some quarrel
took place between the victim and appellant and they started abusing each
other, after which Krishna hit Biram on the knee with a bamboo stick, when
Krishna was hitting Biram, Injured Jalesh came to intervene, the stick was
hit on jalesh on his head.
9. Dr. Abhishek Kumar Shah (PW-11) has admitted in his cross-examination
that the victim Jalesh Sahu had suffered injuries inside his head in an
accident seven to eight years ago. Due to such accident, parietal bone was
removed from his skull, also he admitted that the clotting of blood could be a
result of earlier occurred accident.
10. Dr. J.P. Kaushik (PW-13) who medically examined the victim has stated
that he found injury on parietal bond in the size of 2x0.5x0.5 cm deep, a
lacerated wound on the left knee in the size of 0.5x0.5x0.5, a wound on the
right wrist in the size of 1x0.5x0.5 cm. The injury sustained by the injured
was grievous in nature.
11. Thus from the evidence of the Witness (PW-5) Dr. Abhishek Kumar Shah
(PW-11) and Dr. J.P. Kaushik (PW-13), it is crystal clear that it is the
accused/appellant who hit to the victim with an bamboo stick, as a result of
which injured suffered injury on the parietal bond and other grievous injuries.
According the statement of the Doctor, the injury sustained by the injured
was grievous in nature.
12. Now, the question is, whether the trial Court is justified inconvicting the
appellant for offence under Section 307 of the IPC?
13. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 307 of the IPC
which states as under: -
"307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with
such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances
that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any
person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to
imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is
hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life-convicts.--When any person offending
under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life,
he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death."
14. The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence
under Section 307 of the IPC are:
(i) that the death of a human being was attempted;
(ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in
consequence of the act of the accused; and
(iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing
death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as:
(a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act
known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in
all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, the accused having no excused for
incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.
15. Section 307 and 308, I.P.C. deals with the offences of attempt to
murder and attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. Attempt to commit culpable homicide is an offence punishable
with imprisonment, and but for its being expressly made an offence
under Section 308, it would fall under Section 511. A person commits
the offence of attempt to commit a particular offence, when he intends
to commit that offence and with that intention does any act towards the
commission of that offence. This principle will apply equally to all acts
constituting the offence of attempting to commit an offence, whether
the particular attempt falls under the general Section 511 or under any
special provision by reason of a different punishment being expressly
provided for such attempt. A person commits the offence under Section
308 when he has that intention to commit culpable homicide not
amounting to murder and in pursuance of that intention does any act
towards the commission of that offence, whether the act is the
penultimate act or not. A perusal of the provision contained in Section
307 and Section 308, IPC shows that they make provision for
punishment of an attempt to commit certain offence and that while
Section 307, IPC is linked with the offence of murder punishable under
Section 302 IPC and Section 308, IPC is linked with the offence of
culpable homicide punishable under Section 304, Part-I, IPC, Section
308 covers a case where the act has not resulted in death but if it
resulted in death, the offence would have amounted to culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, meaning thereby, the provision
contained in Section 308 IPC postulates doing an act with such
intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by
that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. An attempt of that nature need not result in hurt.
It is attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable under
Section 308, IPC. Further if an accused does not intend to cause death
or any bodily injury, which he knows to be likely to cause death or even
to cause such bodily injury as sufficient, in the ordinary course of
nature, to cause death, Section 308, IPC would apply, if death in fact
does not result.
16. It is evident from the records that on spur of moment, the appellant has
caused injury to the victim(Jalesh Sahu when he was interevening) on
the front parietal region with bamboo stick and the involvement of the
appellant in this offence, was only to hit single blow with the stick. The
appellant did the aforesaid act for which he would be guilty of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, he shall be guilty of committing an
act punishable under Section 308 of IPC. The age of the appellant at
present is 63 years. Hence the conviction of the appellant under
Section 307/34 of the IPC can be altered/converted to Section 308 of
the IPC.
17. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC is
set aside, however, he is convicted under Section 308 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.
18. So far as sentence under Section 506-II of IPC is concerned,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of 2
years imprisonment imposed by the trial Court appears to excessively
on the higher side and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in the
interest of justice, the sentence u/s 506-II of IPC imposed on him is
reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. Both the sentence will run
concurrently. The conviction under Sections 294, and 323 of IPC are
hereby maintained. However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained.
19. The appellant is in jail and he shall serve out the sentence as modified
above.
20. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated here-in-
above.
21. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial
court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Jyoti
