Chattisgarh High Court
Prahlad Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 September, 2025
1
SYED
ROSHAN
ZAMIR
ALI
Digitally
signed by
SYED 2025:CGHC:46404
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 16 of 2017
1.
Prahlad Sahu S/o Lachchhan Sahu, Aged About 61 Years R/o
Village- Nariyara, Police Station- Hasaud, Tahsil- Jaijaipur,
District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Hasaud,
District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. N.K. Chaterjee, Advocate along with applicant
and the complainant.
For Non-applicant : Mr. K.K. Baharani, Panel Lawyer
SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
10.09.2025
1. This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section
401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'CrPC') is filed
against the judgment dated 20.12.2016 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.184/2015 thereby affirming the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 6.10.2015 passed in
Criminal Case No.256/2019 by which learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Jaijaipur convicted the applicant for
commission of offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal
Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo RI for 1
year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to undergo
additional SI for 01 month.
2. Case of prosecution, in brief, on 30.7.2009 at about 18:00 hrs
when complainant Chandrakant Sahu was going towards his
house, at that time co-accused Samaru, who was armed with
club, met him and seeing him, he started abusing him,
threatened him for life and dragged him near the house of Akti
where Lalit, Chandramnai and others intervened then
accused Samaru gave lathi blow to Lalit, whereas
accused/applicant, who was holding axe, gave axe blow to
Lalit, which he stopped from his hands and therefore, suffered
injuries in both hands. Report of incident was lodged in
concerned police station based upon which crime bearing
No.214/2009 was registered against accused persons for
commission of offence punishable under Section 294, 506,
323, 34 of IPC.
3. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge
sheet before the Court concerned and charges were framed
against accused persons for aforementioned sections.
Accused persons denied the charges and claim to be tried. In
order to prove the charges, prosecution examined as many as
14 witnesses and got marked 18 documents. After closing of
the evidence of prosecution, statement of accused persons
under Section 313 CrPC was recorded. Learned trial Court
while acquitting the applicant from the charges under Section
294, 506B, 323 (three times) and 342 of IPC, found him guilty
of the offence under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced him in
the manner as stated in paragraph No.1 of this judgment.
Criminal appeal preferred by applicant was also dismissed
vide impugned judgment.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant and
complainant are resident of same village, incident occurred
out of a sudden quarrel, it was not premeditated and applicant
did not act in cruel or unusual manner and therefore the
offence under Section 326 of IPC is not made out. He submits
tha applicant and injured victim have entered into a
compromise and an application duly signed by the
complainant has already been filed. The dispute was purely
personal in nature, arising out of sudden quarrel, and that no
useful purpose would be served by continuing the conviction
when the complainant has settled the matter. He submits that
looking to present age of applicant i.e. 72 years, coupled with
the fact that complainant, who is the sole victim, has forgiven
applicant by entering into settlement, he prays for
consideration of compromise and acquittal of applicant. In
alternative, it is submitted that if this Court is not convinced to
acquit the appellant, then considering the fact that applicant is
facing agony of trial, criminal appeal and criminal revision
since 2009 i.e. for a period of near about 16 years, and the
parties have entered into settlement, his sentence of
imprisonment may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him in jail.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the submissions of learned counsel for applicant and
supported the impugned judgment. He further submits that
the applicant voluntarily caused injuries to complainant and
medical evidence makes it clear that injuries sustained by
complainant is by assault from sharp edged weapon.
Testimony of injured has been corroborated by the statement
of eyewitness present on the spot and statements of doctor
who medically examined the injured. The prosecution
successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt
that on the date of incident, applicant caused grievous injury
on the hand of the injured and he has been rightly convicted
by the trial court, which does not call for any interference in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction. He further submits that
offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is not
compoundable.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused
the record.
7. So far as the compromise application is concerned, it is well
settled that offence under Section 326 of IPC under which
applicant has been convicted and sentenced, is non-
compoundable, application is filed after judgment of trial Court
and therefore, prayer for acquittal based on compromise
application cannot be accepted. However, the effect of
compromise may be considered while considering the
question of sentence.
8. From perusal of the record of Courts below, this Court finds
that learned trial Court convicted the applicant for commission
of offence under Section 326 of IPC for voluntarily causing
injuries to injured Lalit by means of axe, relying on the
testimonies of injured Lalit (PW-1), who has received injuries
for which he was referred to Community Health Centre,
Jaijaipur where he was given treatment, Dr. M. Kashyap
(PW-2), who treated injured, and other prosecution witnesses
who were present on the spot and were examined.
Therefore, I would like to discuss as to whether the
prosecution witnesses of fact were rightly believed or not by
the trial court.
9. Lalit (PW-2) has stated on the date of incident, when he was
in his agriculture field, his brother Premlal, Chhotelal and
Babulal came and told that accused persons are assaulting
complainant, whereupon he reached the spot, seeing him
accused persons started threatening and abusing him filthily,
applicant herein assaulted him by means of axe which he
stopped from his hands as a result sustained injuries on both
his hands, if he would had not stopped the axe from his
hands, the blow may have landed on his head.
10. Chandrakant (PW-1), an injured witness, has fully supported
the version of Lalit (PW-2) by stating that on the date of
incident, when accused persons were assaulting him, when
he came to intervene, accused Prahlad picked up axe to
assault him, however, in order to save him, he pushed
Prahlad and stopped the axe blow from his hands in which
received injuries.
11. Bhadramani Sahu (PW-3), Babulal (PW-3), Manharan Sahu
(PW-5), Puniram Sahu (PW-6), Rukhman (PW-7), Pitambar
(PW-8), Premlal (PW-9), who were also present on the spot,
have also vividly described the incident and participation of
accused persons in the incident as described by PW-1 and
PW-2. The aforementioned witnesses were subjected to
lengthy cross-examinations, however, the learned defence
counsel could not elicit anything which could shatter the
credibility of these witnesses in any manner.
12. Perusal of injury report of Lalit (PW-2) shows that Injury No.1
is a incised would of the size 1"x ½" x ½" over left index
finger at the base of index finger and middle finger. Injury
No.2 is the incised wound of the size ½" x ½ x½" over right
ring finger extent from ring finger to middle finger.
13. Dr. M. Kashyap (PW-12) who medically examined Lalit
(PW-2), has deposed that on being produced by Constable,
he examined injured Lalit and noticed one incised wound in
the middle of left middle and ring finger, blood was coming out
and size was 1" x ½ " and ½" deep, which was caused by
hard and sharp edged weapon. The doctor also noticed
fracture injury on left second meta facial joint and 5th meta
carpel joint; incised wound on right ring and middle finger.
14. It is settled position that testimony of an injured witness is
accorded a special status in law and such witness would not
like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to
implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the
offence. Therefore, the evidence of the injured witness has to
be relied upon unless there are convincing grounds for the
rejection of his evidence.
15. As discussed above, the evidence of Chandrakant (PW-1),
Lalit (PW-2), Bhadramani Sahu (PW-3), Babulal (PW-3),
Manharan Sahu (PW-5), Puniram Sahu (PW-6), Rukhman
(PW-7), Pitambar (PW-8), Premlal (PW-9) is supportive to
each other insofar as role played by the applicant. Their
evidence shows that they substantiated version of injured Lalit
(PW-2). Quality of their evidence shows that they are
witnesses to the truth. Testimonies of injured and aforesaid
eyewitnesses further gets support from the medical evidence,
according to which, the injuries were caused by hard and
sharp edged weapon. Injured and other eyewitnesses to the
incident were subjected to extensive cross-examination but
the defence failed to elicit anything worth, which could
possibly cause any dent in their testimony so far as the
complicity of appellants is concerned. Thus, this Court is of
the view that the evidence produced by the prosecution
clearly establishes complicity of accused/applicant in the
crime in question beyond reasonable doubt. In other words,
learned trial Court has rightly believed the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses to establish complicity of applicant in
instant crime.
16. As regards the quantum of sentence, incident took place
more than 16 years ago; it was first offence of applicant, the
applicant and complainant are residents of one and same
village, the complainant has entered into compromise and has
further no objection to acquit the applicant of the charge or
reduce the sentence suitably as deemed fit by this Court;
applicant is presently age of applicant is about 71 years, he
has been facing agony of trial and criminal case against him
for about 16 years. Applicant has already served jail
sentence of six days during trial and about 18 days after
judgment of conviction by appellate Court.
17. Considering totality of facts and circumstances, in the opinion
of this Court, ends of justice would be met if the sentence of
imprisonment awarded to the applicant is reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
18. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining
conviction of applicant under Section 326 of IPC, the
sentence of RI for 1 year imposed upon him is reduced to the
period of detention already undergone by him. Applicant is
reported to be on bail. His bail bond stands discharged.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-
