High Court acquitted two appellants and altered the charge of a third appellant from Section 307 to 325 IPC. The court accepted a compromise application for compoundable offences and discharged bail bonds.
Appellants 1 & 2 acquitted; Appellant 3 conviction altered to S. 325 IPC with time remitted; bail bonds discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 513 of 2005
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
Post for pronouncement of the judgment on 07.10.2021
Sd/-_____ JUDGE
2
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment Reserved pm 08.09.2021
Judgement Delivered on 07.10.2021
CRA No. 513 of 2005
All R/o. Village Kanchanpur,PS Baramkela, District Raigarh (CG)
---- Appellants
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellants : Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Ishwar Jaiswal, PL For Complainant : Shri Aditya Khare, Advocate
Hon’ble Smt.Justice Rajani Dubey
C A V Order
07/10/2021
This appeal arises out of a common judgment dated 12.05.05 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 05/05 whereby the appellants have been held guilty of commission of the offence under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation.
3
4
clinching evidence. It is argued that the impugned judgment of the trial court is contrary to law and facts of the case therefore it deserves to be set aside. The prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 307 IPC and as the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt the appellants be acquitted in the present case. The so called eyewitness Madhuri Patel has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. The other prosecution witness have also supported the prosecution case fully and it is not a case under Section 307 IPC and at the most, Section 325 IPC is made out against the appellants which is compoundable in nature and ought to be compounded in the ends of justice.
5
following injuries:
I) multiple bruises of about 7 x 3 cm. On right arm lateral aspect and back over right scapula
ii) irregular swelling of right forearm
iii) irregular swelling of left palm (dorsal aspect)
iv) multiple bruises of about 7 x 3 cm. On left scapular region and left arm (lateral aspect)
v) abrasion if 2 x 1 cm. Left leg (dorsal aspect)
vi) contusion of 5 x 3 cm left thigh
vii) abrasion of right knee (2 x 2 cm.) and 1 x 1 cm. Right leg (skin of tibia)
viii) skull depressed over forehead (left frontal area) about 2x1cm.
6
Sd/(Rajani Dubey) Judge
suguna
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of appellants under Section 325 IPC based on compromise application and medical opinion is proper.
Whether conviction can be altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC based on medical evidence.
Whether HOA.<sup>2</sup><sub>02</sub>/2020 application under Section 320(5) Cr.P.C. for compoundable offence should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Padman Patel And Ors.
State Of Chhattisgarh
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
