[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Harbin Tirkey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13444
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1781 of 2017
Harbin Tirkey S/o Prakash Tirky Aged About 20 Years R/o Village
Pakpani, Thana Pathalgaon District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Thana - Pathalgaon, District
Jashpur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Tandan, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Judgment on Board
20/03/2026
1. The present criminal appeal is filed by the appellant under Section
374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.)
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
06.11.2017 passed by Learned Additional Judge of Additional
Sessions Judge Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial
No. 09/2017 whereby the appellant stand convicted as under:
CONVICTION SENTENCE
U/S 324 of IPC R.I. for 2 years.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.08.2016 at about
04:00 PM, near the house of Kishore Tirkey within Police Station
Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, the appellant assaulted Jitan Tirkey
and Robert Tirkey with a sharp-edged weapon (tangi), allegedly
on account of a land dispute. On the basis of report lodged by
PW-1 Jitan Tirkey, FIR (Ex. P-1) was registered and after due
investigation, charge-sheet was filed. On the basis of the
documents presented by the prosecution, charges under Sections
307 IPC were framed against the accused persons. The charges
were read over and explained to them. The accused denied the
charges and pleaded not guilty.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Learned counsel
for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has
been falsely implicated due to land dispute; there are material
contradictions in the prosecution evidence; the appellant has
already undergone about three and a half months of incarceration;
the incident is of the year 2016; the sentence deserves to be
reduced to the period already undergone.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned
judgment and submitted that the injured witnesses have
consistently supported the prosecution case; their testimony is
corroborated by medical evidence; and the conviction is based on
proper appreciation of evidence.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions made hereinabove and also went through the
records with utmost circumspection.
6. PW-1 (Injured Witness) has stated that the appellant assaulted
him with a tangi causing head injury and also assaulted his son
Robert. However, a significant contradiction is found in the FIR
(Ex. P-1), wherein the injury to him is attributed to another
accused (Kishore Tirkey). This creates doubt regarding the role of
the appellant in causing injury to PW-1.
7. PW-2 (Injured Witness) has categorically deposed that the
appellant assaulted him with a tangi, causing injuries to his head
and thigh. His testimony remains unshaken in cross-examination
and is duly corroborated by medical evidence. Being an injured
witness, his testimony carries great evidentiary value and inspires
confidence.
8. PW-3 & PW-4 both witnesses are not eyewitnesses to the actual
incident. Their evidence is hearsay in nature and does not
materially advance the prosecution case regarding the assault.
PW-12 also admitted that she did not see the assault and she is
not an eye-witness.
9. PW-9 Dr. James Minj (Medical Officer) prepared the medical
report Ex. P/14 and P/15. The medical evidence reveals the
incised wound on the head of Jitan Tirkey and the incised wounds
on the head and thigh of Robert Tirkey. The injuries were caused
by a sharp-edged weapon. However, X-ray reports reveal no
fracture, and the injuries are simple in nature.
10. Investigating Officers (PW-8 & PW-11) have proved FIR, seizure
of weapon (tangi), and other procedural aspects. Though seizure
witnesses turned hostile, recovery is sufficiently proved through
official witnesses.
11. In view of the contradiction between FIR and deposition, and
absence of reliable corroboration, it is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the appellant caused injury to Jitan Tirkey.
The testimony of PW-2, supported by medical evidence, clearly
establishes that the appellant caused injuries to Robert Tirkey by
a sharp-edged weapon. The injuries being simple in nature and
absence of intention to cause death, the conviction under Section
324 IPC is justified and calls for no interference.
12. Thus, the prosecution has been fully successful in proving the
offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,
this Court does not find that there is any illegality or perversity in
the impugned order.
13. As regards the sentence awarded to the appellant. The incident is
of the year 2016. The appellant and the injured are close relatives
and the dispute arose out of land. The appellant has no criminal
antecedents. The injuries caused are simple in nature. The
appellant has already undergone 4 months and 8 days of
incarceration. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court
is of the view that sending the appellant back to jail after a long
lapse of time would not serve the ends of justice.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly-allowed. While maintaining the
conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is
modified as under:
The substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two
years is reduced to the period already undergone by the
appellant. In lieu thereof, a fine of ₹2,000/- (Rupees Two
Thousand only) is imposed upon the appellant. In default of
payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The fine amount shall be
paid to both the injured persons.
15. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall remain in force till
payment of fine and shall stand discharged thereafter.
16. 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
Madhurima
