[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Hasin And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:12836-DB
The date The date The date when the judgment is uploaded on
when the when the the website
judgment is judgment is
reserved pronounced
Operative Full
06-02-2026 18-03-2026 - 18-03-2026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 06-02-2026
Judgment delivered on : 18-03-2026
CRA No. 7 of 2014
1. Hasin S/o Shri Lakhan Lal, aged about 23 years,
2. Ajay S/o Subechand, aged about 21 years,
3. Mohit S/o Shri Chaindas, aged about 22 years,
All are R/o Village Munarbod, Thana-Bemetara, Revenue/Civil
District Bemetara (CG)
4. Ranjeet Koshale S/o Shri Sukhchain Koshale, aged about 23
years, R/o Village-Rebeli, Thana-Nandghat, Distt. Bemetara (CG)
{Died and deleted as per Hon'ble Court order dated 22.1.2026}
... Appellants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bemetara, Distt.
Bemetara (CG)
... Respondent
2
For Appellants : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ
CAV Judgment
Per Rajani Dubey, J
Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2013 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara Distt. Durg in ST
No.27/2009, whereby the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as
under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 304 Part II/149 of RI for 07 years, pay a fine of
Indian Penal Code. Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to
suffer additional RI for 01 month.
Under Section 147 of Indian Penal RI for 03 months.
Code.
Under Section 148 of Indian Penal RI for 06 months.
Code.
Under Section 323/149 of Indian RI for 03 months.
Penal Code.
Under Section 325/149 of Indian RI for 01 year, pay a fine of
Penal Code. Rs.100/- and in default thereof to
suffer additional RI for 15 days.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.3.2009 at 15:00
hours, when Ghanshyam was standing near Dheeraji Grocery Shop at
Village Munarbod, the accused persons came there armed with club
and axe, and in furtherance of their common object, started filthily
abusing, threatening of life and assaulting David Kumar, Dinesh,
Ghanshyam Pal, Leeluram, Neelkanth @ Shyam, Teekaram,
Kheenuram & Sahinabai and caused them grievous injuries. As a result
of injuries suffered by Ghanshyam, he died on 23.3.2009 at Medical
College Hospital Raipur during treatment. On the complaint of David
Kumar, the police registered offence under Sections 147, 148, 294,
506B, 323/149, 326/149, 302/149 of IPC against the accused persons.
The injured were got medically examined and the dead body was sent
for postmortem after conducting inquest proceedings. Plain and
bloodstained soil were seized from the place of occurrence and
statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing
necessary formalities of investigation, charge sheet was filed against
the accused persons before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.
03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148,
294, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 & 302/149 of IPC against the
accused persons which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial.
In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 22
witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section
313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances
appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence
and false implication.
04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court
while acquitting the accused persons of the charges under Sections
302/149, 324/149, 326/149, 294/149 of IPC, convicted them under
Sections 304 Part II/149, 147, 148, 323/149 & 325/149 of IPC and
sentenced them as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this
judgment. Hence this appeal.
05. During pendency of this appeal, appellant No.4 Ranjeet Koshale
died on 12.7.2017 and hence as per order dated 22.1.2026, the instant
in respect of appellant No.4 stood abated and dismissed as such.
06. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is contrary to
the evidence on record. There are major contradictions, omission and
improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The
prosecution has failed to attribute any motive to the accused/appellants
for commission of the alleged offence. Thus the prosecution has failed
to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt
and therefore, they deserve to be acquitted of all the charges by giving
them benefit of doubt.
07. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/State opposing the aforesaid contention of the appellants
would submit that the learned trial Court after proper appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced
the appellants by the impugned judgment which calls for no
interference by this Court. The instant appeal filed by the appellants
being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed.
08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
09. As regards homicidal death of deceased Ghanshyam Pal, PW-11
David lodged a report (Ex.P/22) categorically stated therein that on
11.3.2009 at 15:00 hours when Ghanshyam was standing near
Dheeraji Grocery Shop at Village Munarbod, the accused persons
came there armed with club and axe, and in furtherance of their
common object, started filthily abusing, threatening of life and
assaulting David Kumar, Dinesh, Ghanshyam Pal, Leeluram,
Neelkanth @ Shyam, Teekaram, Kheenuram & Sahinabai and caused
them grievous injuries. This witness further states that at the instance
of police, they took Ghanshyam and other injured to Govt. Hospital,
Bemetara and looking to their serious condition, they were referred to
Medical College Hospital Raipur where Ghanshyam died during
treatment on 13.3.2009.
10. PW-11 David and PW-3 Hariram have proved the inquest
proceedings also. PW-8 Neelkanth, PW-9 Leeluram, PW-10 Dineshpal,
PW-12 Kheenuram and PW-13 Teekaram Pal have also stated that
Ghanshaym suffered injuries during fight, he was initially taken to Govt.
Hospital, Bemetara and then referred to Raipur where during treatment
he died.
11. PW-1 Dr. AM Shrivastava states that on 11.3.2009 he medically
examined injured Ghanshyam Pal and noticed a lacerated wound of
size 2 ½ x 2 ½ x 2 ½ inch over his occipital region and opined that it
could be caused by hard and blunt object. He advised for x-ray of the
injury vide Ex.P/2.
12. PW-16 Dr. RK Singh conducted postmortem of the deceased on
13.3.2009 and noticed three surgical stitched wounds over head,
contusion over right forearm and near right eye as also depressed
fracture of frontal bone. In his opinion, death was due to cardio-
respiratory failure as a result of head injury and its complications. His
report is Ex.P/38. He denied the suggestion that all these injuries could
be caused due to fall on ground.
13. In view of the aforesaid uncontroverted oral, documentary and
medical evidence, it can safely be inferred that deceased Ghanshyam
Pal died due to the injuries suffered by him in the above incident and
as such, his death was homicidal in nature. Being so, the finding of
learned trial Court holding the death of Ghanshyam homicidal in nature
cannot be faulted with.
14. PW-3 Hariram, PW-8 Neelkanth, PW-9 Leeluram, PW-10 Dinesh
Pal, PW-11 David and PW-12 Kheenuram have categorically stated
that on the day of Holi at around 3 pm, the accused/appellants armed
with club, stick and crowbar came together with other co-accused and
started assaulting them as a result of which they suffered injuries on
various parts of the body. In cross-examination, PWs-9, 10 & 12
admitted the suggestion that in respect of the same incident, a counter
case was also registered against them.
15. On 11.3.2009 Dr. AM Shrivastava (PW-1) examined the injured
Dinesh Pal, Ghanshyam, Leeluram, Neelakth and Teekaram and found
injury over their head which was caused by hard and blunt object, vide
their medical reports of Ex.P/1 to P/5 respectively. According to the
doctor, injury suffered by Dinesh Pal and Neelkanth was simple in
nature and he advised for x-ray of the injury suffered by Ghanshyam,
Leeluram and Teekaram. He also examined injured Kheenuram and
found incised wound on left cheek and a bone deep cut wound on right
elbow which were simple in nature, and a crushed wound on left little
finger, for which he advised x-ray to ascertain its nature. His report is
Ex.P/6. After receipt of x-ray reports of the aforesaid injured persons,
he opined that fracture was found in ulna bone of Leeluram and Shyam
Kumar @ Neelkanth. There was also fracture of metacarpal bone of
right hand of Shyam Kumar.
He also examined injured David and found abrasions on right
forearm, right shoulder, left hand and a bone deep crushed wound on
right side of head. In his opinion, all these injuries were simple in
nature. His report is Ex.P/8.
16. On the same day, he also examined the accused persons and
found that Kamleshwar sustained lacerated wound on occipital region
which was simple in nature vide Ex.D/1; Bhagchand sustained cut
wound on right arm, a bone deep cut wound on forehead and cut over
lips and advised for x-ray of the injuries vide Ex.D/2. He states that the
injury caused over head of Bhagchand was sufficient to cause his
death. He also examined accused Rameshwar and noticed a bone
deep crushed wound over occipital parietal region caused by hard and
blunt object and advised for x-ray vide Ex.D/3. He admits that this
injury was sufficient to cause his death. On examination of Subechand
he found swelling over left elbow and a crushed wound over tempo-
parietal region and advised for its x-ray vide Ex.D/4. He admits that the
head injury was sufficient to cause his death. On examination of
Chaindas he noticed a crushed wound on right side occipital region
and acute pain in right shoulder as also contusion with swelling in right
wrist. These injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and he
advised for x-ray of these injuries to ascertain its nature vide Ex.D/5.
He states that the head injury was sufficient to cause his death.
17. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence on record and found that in the incident which
took place on 11.3.2009, the accused/appellants caused simple injuries
to PW-8 Neelkanth and PW-10 Dinesh Pal by hard and blunt object
and grievous injuries to Leeluram, Teekaram, Kheenuram and
Shyamkumar. It is also clear from the evidence on record that the
accused/appellants being a member of an unlawful assembly
assaulted the injured persons in furtherance of their common object
and during this process, injured Ganshyam Pal sustained grievous
head injuries which led to his death after two days during the course of
treatment. Thus, conviction of the accused/appellants u/s 147, 148,
323/149 and 325/149 of IPC recorded by the learned trial Court is just
and proper and is hereby affirmed.
18. So far as conviction of the accused/appellants u/s 304-II/149 of
IPC is concerned, it is clear from the evidence of PW-1 Dr. AM
Shrivastava that he found injury on head of injured Ghanshyam Pal on
11.3.2009 and advised for x-ray. As per PW-16 Dr. RK Singh he also
found injury on head of deceased Ghanshyam. Admittedly, he died two
days after the incident on 13.3.2009. As per autopsy surgeon (PW-16),
cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure as a result of head injury
and its complications.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Halke and another
(supra) observed in para 3 of its order as under:
"3. We have gone through the judgments of both the courts and
the relevant evidence. It is submitted by the counsel for the
appellants that the prosecution has not properly explained the
injuries found on the accused persons and the circumstances
show that the deceased-party could have been the aggressors.
The evidence of the injured witnesses also show that the two
appellants with sticks inflicted some blows on the deceased as
well as on the two witnesses. In this context the medical evidence
becomes very relevant. The occurrence is said to have taken
place on 15-4-1974. The injured-deceased was admitted in the
hospital and the doctor found four contusions. One of them was
on the head. Necessary treatment was given and an operation
was also performed and unfortunately the deceased died on 22-4-
1974. PWS 1 and 9 were also examined by the doctor and
similarly he found some lacerated wounds and some abrasions.
Therefore to that extent the medical evidence also corroborates
the evidence of PWs 1 and 9. Taking all circumstances into
consideration we find that there must have been a fight and it is
difficult to hold that the appellants while inflicting stick blows had
the knowledge that under the circumstances they were likely to
cause the death of the deceased when they themselves have
received the injuries at the hands of the prosecution party. Coming
to the death of the deceased as noted already the medical
evidence shows that the deceased was treated for nearly a week
and an operation was also performed and he died only thereafter.
No doubt the injury on the head proved to be fatal after lapse of
one week but from that alone it cannot be said that the offence
committed by the two appellants was one punishable under
Section 304 Part II IPC. The injuries found on the witnesses are
also of the same nature and for the same they are convicted
under Section 325 IPC. Having regard to the fact that the
deceased died after one week the offence committed by them in
respect of the deceased would also be the same, punishable
under Section 325 IPC. In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case we set aside the conviction of the
appellants under Section 304 Part II IPC and the sentence of five
years' RI thereunder, instead we convict the appellants under
Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence each of them
to undergo nine months' RI. The conviction under Section 325
read with Section 34 IPC is confirmed but the sentence is reduced
to nine months' RI. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The
appeal is partly allowed."
20. In the present case also, the incident took place on 11.3.2009
where both the parties assaulted each other and sustained similar
injuries. A counter case was also lodged against the complainant party
by the accused. PW-1 Dr. AM Shrivastava noticed head injury of
Ghanshyam which proved to be fatal and led to his death two days
after the incident on 13.3.2009 during treatment. The autopsy surgeon
(PW-16) at the time of examination found fracture of frontal bone of
size 3.5 x 1.2 cm. Leeluram and Teekaram also suffered head injury
which was grievous in nature for which the accused/appellants are
convicted u/s 325 of IPC. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the manner in which the incident took
place where deceased Ghanshyam sustained head injury and died two
days after the incident during treatment, we are of the opinion that
learned trial Court was not justified in holding the accused/appellants
guilty u/s 304-II/149 of IPC and rather in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the act committed by them makes them liable for conviction
u/s 325/149 of IPC.
21. As for the sentence u/s 325/149 of IPC, in the totality of facts and
circumstances of the case, the fact that the incident took place way
back in the year 2009; the accused/appellants also sustained injuries in
this incident and filed a counter case against the complainant party;
they were on bail during pendency of this appeal and did not misuse
the liberty; they have remained in jail for near about a year; we are of
the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending them
back to jail at this stage and ends of justice would be met if their
substantive jail sentence u/s 325/149 of IPC is reduced to the period
already undergone by them and are directed to pay fine of Rs.100/-
with default sentence of 01 month.
22. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining
conviction of the accused/appellants u/s 147, 148, 323/149 & 325/149
of IPC and the sentence imposed thereunder, their conviction u/s 304-
II/149 of IPC is altered into Section 325/149 of IPC and the substantive
jail sentence of the accused/appellants under this section is reduced to
the period already suffered by them. However, they shall pay a fine of
Rs.100/- each thereunder or else shall suffer additional RI for one
month. The fine amount already deposited shall be adjusted
accordingly.
The accused/appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore,
their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months
from today by virtue of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. The
record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back
immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary
action.
Sd/ Sd/
(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
MOHD by MOHD
AKHTAR KHAN
AKHTAR Date:
2026.03.18
KHAN 13:26:37
+0530
Khan
