Chattisgarh High Court
Chandrapal Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 1126 of 2016
1 - Chandrapal Kashyap S/o Mitthu Lal Aged About 38 Years
2 - Ravi Kumar S/o Chandrapal Kashyap Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Hiragarh,
Digitally Police Station / Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh
signed by
ANJANI
KUMAR ... Applicants
ALLENA
Date: versus
2025.03.21
17:32:34
+0530 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Janjgir, District Janjgir -
Champa Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Applicants : Shri Ritesh Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Smt. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer.
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
Order on Board
19/03/2025
Heard.
1. This revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2016 passed
by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir C.G. in Criminal
Appeal No.75/2016, whereby the learned appellate Court has
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 20.05.2016
passed in Criminal Case No.339/2015 by the trial Magistrate convicting
the applicants under Sections 323/34 & 324/34 IPC and sentencing
them to RI for 3 months and one year respectively and fine of Rs.500/-
on each count. Besides this, the learned appellate Court also
confirmed the conviction of appellant No.1 Chandrapal Kshyap under
Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentence of RI for one year and fine of
Rs.500/- while keeping in tact the default sentence of SI for one month
on each count, as rendered by the trial Magistrate.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.08.2015 at 08:30 pm
both the applicants came to the house of the complainant - Sanat
Kumar Shrivas and started abusing him filthily and that apart, the
applicant No.2 Ravi Kumar caught hold of the complainant whereas
applicant No.1 Chandrapal Kashyap assaulted him with iron object,
used for cutting chicken, while threatening him to life, due to such
assault, the complainant got injuries over his body. The incident was
reported to the Police Station Navagadh, upon which, offence under
Sections 294, 506, 323, 324/34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act has been
registered against the applicants.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Navagadh The applicants abjured the charge
and pleaded non-guilty.
4. The learned Court of JMFC and appellate Court, after appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the
applicants, as shown in para 1 of its order. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits
that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, without appreciating
the evidence on record, have wrongly convicted the applicants. He
contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove whether the
dagger used by applicant No.1 has been seized from his possession or
not and that the seized article has not been produced before the Court
during trial. He next contends that independent witnesses to the
seizure P.W.6 Nohar Lal and P.W.9 Panchram Kurre have turned
hostile. He further submits that after alleged seizure of iron Kata, used
for chicken cutting, the same has not been sealed properly, In
alternative, he submits that if the Court ultimately holds the applicants
guilty, then it is prayed that the applicants, who are in jail from
24.08.2015 to 31.08.2015 and again from 29.11.2016 to 07.12.2016
(total 17 days) be sentenced to the period already undergone by them.
He further submits that they are facing the lis since 2015 i.e. for about
10 years and that there are no criminal antecedents against them
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and
supported the impugned judgment and further submits that the
prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
8. As far as conviction of the applicants under Sections 323/34 & 324/34
IPC is concerned, statement of P.W.1 Sanat Kumar Shrivas is crucial.
He has stated that when he was present in his house after having
meals, both the applicants came to his house and started hurling
abuses filthily, then applicant No.2 caught hold of him whereas
applicant No.1 Chandrapal, holding his hand an iron object used for
cutting chicken, assaulted him and caused injuries over left ear and left
hand. The statement of this witness has been corroborated by P.W.2
Kaleshwari Shrivas, wife of the complainant P.W.1, P.W.4 Jay Narayan
Shrivas and P.W.7 Dr. Shrawan Jeneria, who has stated that on
examination of the complainant, he found four injuries, one is incised
wound between thumb and index finger, second also incised wound
over left ear pinna, third is abrasion on dorsal surface of neck and
fourth one is also abrasion on left knee. After examination, P.W.7 Dr.
Shrawan has stated that although all the four injuries are simple in
nature, but injuries No.1 & 2 were caused by hard and sharp whereas
injuries No.3 & 4 by hard and blunt object. Thus, P.W.7 proved M.L.C.
report Ex.P.7.
9. So far as conviction of the applicants under Sections 323/34 & 324/34
IPC is concerned, indisputably, both the applicants assaulted P.W.1
Sanat Kumar Shrivas, whose statement was also supported by the
evidence of P.W.2 Kaleshwari Shrivas and P.W.4 Jay Narayan Shrivas
and more so, statement of P.W.7 Dr.Shrawan Jeneriay is also crucial
as he has proved the injuries found over the body of the complainant.
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Court of J.M.F.C.
and Additional Sessions Judge, after minutely appreciating the
evidence available on record, were fully justified in convicting the
applicants under the aforesaid sections and such finding does not call
for any interference.
10. Now, coming to the conviction of the applicant No.1 Chandrapal
Kashyap under Section 25 of the Arms Act, what is to be seen is the
seizure of iron Kata used for chicken cutting from the possession of
applicant No.1 Chandrpal Kashyap by the Police. P.W.8 S.N.Gupta,
A.S.I. has stated that he had seized one iron Kata from the possession
of applicant No.1 on 24.08.2015 before the witnesses, i.e., P.W.6
Noharlal and P.W.9 Panchram Kurre vide seizure memo Ex.P.4.
However, seizure memo (Ex.P.4) shows that the "date 24.8.2015" was
overwritten on front page and near the signature appeared in second
page, which fact was not clarified by the prosecution. Further, there
was no sample seal affixed after effecting seizure before the prescribed
column. Besides that, the alleged seized iron object has not been
produced before the trial Court during trial. It is also pertinent to
mention here that independent seizure witnesses, i.e., P.W.6 Noharlal
and P.W.9 Panchram Kurre have turned hostile and not supported the
case of prosecution as they specifically stated that the Policemen did
not seize any material from the accused Chandrapal and that, as per
their instructions, they signed on the seizure memo. Further, P.W.1
Sanat Kumar Shrivas, in his statement, has stated that applicant No.1
assaulted him by an object, used for cutting chicken whereas as per
the statement of P.W.7 Dr. Shrawan Jeneria, the injuries, as mentioned
in M.L.C. report Ex.P.7, could have been caused by hard and sharp
object, however, the seizure of iron Kata has not been proved by the
prosecution, but it appears from the evidence of injured witness
(P.W.1), he was assaulted by applicant No.1 Chandrapal Kashyap with
some blunt and sharp object. In that view of the matter, I am of the
view that both the learned Courts were not justified in convicting the
applicant No.1 Chandrapal Kashyap for the offence under Section 25
of the Arms Act, therefore, the sentence imposed thereunder is liable to
set aside.
11. As regards the sentence part of the applicants under Sections 323/34
& 324/34 IPC, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
also considering the fact that the applicants have undergone 17 days
jail sentence, they are facing the lis since 2015 i.e. for about 10 years,
there are no criminal antecedents against them and that fine amount
has already been deposited, I am of the view that the ends of justice
would be met if, while upholding the conviction of the applicants under
Sections 323/34 & 324/34 IPC, the jail sentence thereunder awarded to
them is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
12. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining
conviction of the applicants under Sections 323/34 & 324/34 of IPC,
the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court is hereby modified to the effect that their sentences
shall run concurrently and they are sentenced to the period already
undergone by them. However, the conviction of the applicant No.1
Chandrapal Kashyap under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentence
imposed thereunder is hereby set aside while keeping in tact the fine
amount awarded under each count.
13. It is reported that the applicants are on bail. Their bail bonds are not
discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a
further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Anjani
