Partly allowed

Gangaram Chauhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Aug 2022CRA/615/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction and sentence for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone due to the appellant's age and time served.

What did the court decide?

The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, and the appellant was directed to be set free forthwith.

Gangaram Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 615 of 2021

¶5

Gangaram Chauhan S/o Mohan Chauhan Aged About 65 Years R/o- Village - Naugdi, Police Chowki- Bhanwarpur, Police Station - Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Mahasamund, DistrictMahasamund (C.G.)

¶9

--- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant Shri Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For State - Shri Sameer Oraon, GA

¶11

Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶12

04/08/2022

¶13

By way of instant appeal the appellant is assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment impugned dated 08.11.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District– Mahasamund (CG) in Sessions Trial No. 42/2018 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigourous imprisonment for 01 month.

¶14

Facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal in brevity are that in the night of 22.05.2018 the accused/appellant herein inflicted knife injuries to his wife Sanmoti. On the information given by one Haradhan Chouhan (PW-7), an offence under Section 307 IPC was registered against the appellant. After drawing the spot map, the injured was taken to Community Health Centre Basna for treatment. On the disclosure statement of the appellant a knife was recovered from his possession; plain

¶15

¶16

as well as blood stained soil was collected; the statements of the witnesses were recorded and the knife so seized was sent for forensic examination.

¶17

After completion of investigation chargsheet was filed against the appellant on 20.08.2018 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basna from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge thereafter transferred the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge for trial. Charge under Section 307 IPC was framed by the Additional Sessions Judge but the appellant denied the same and pleaded for trial.

¶18

In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the same. He however did not examine anyone in support of his case.

¶19

After hearing the parties and making due appreciation of the evidence on record, learned Court below by the judgment impugned convicted the accused/appellant under Section 307 IPC and imposed the sentence as detailed above. Hence this appeal.

¶20

Counsel for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by the Court below convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant as mentioned above are not based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and being so they are liable to be set aside. Lastly, it is submitted that if conviction part of the judgment impugned is not going to be interfered with, looking to the fact that out of the total period of sentence of RI for 5 years imposed on the appellant, he has already

¶21

¶22

remained behind the bars for more than 4 years and that the incident had taken place about five years back and that by now he is in the advancement of his age, no useful purpose would be served in keeping him in further detention and therefore the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶23

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the judgment impugned is based on just and proper appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses and therefore no interference with the same is called for in this appeal.

¶24

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned.

¶25

The core witnesses in this case appear to be the injured (PW-6) and Dr. B.R. Malik (PW-8) who medically examined her and gave his report (Ex.P-15). The injured has categorically stated in her statement that when she was giving food to her husband (the appellant) he inflicted a knife blow in her stomach as a result of which she became unconscious and was taken to hospital at Basna by her neighboures from where looking to her condition she was referred to Medical College, Raipur where she remained hospitalised for about 13 days and it is her son who used to take care of her in the hospital. In cross examination also she remained firm to what she stated in the examination in chief. Bhagwati (PW-1) who remained in the hospital with the injured has clearly stated that she was informed by the injured that it is the accused who inflicted knife blows to her, and thus supported the case of the prosecution. Likewise, Narendra yadav (PW-3) and Haradhan (PW-7) are the witnessess to seizure of knife vide seizure memo Ex. P-6 and P-7 and they also supported the case

¶26

¶27

of the prosecution. Similarly Dr. B.R. Malik (PW-8) who medically examined the injured and gave his report Ex. P-15 has stated that there was incised wound on her stomach in the size of 07 x 2.5 cm and her intestines had come out. He also noticed one lacerated wound on the middle of the head in the size of 05 x .5 cm caused by hard and blunt object. Injury on the stomach, according to this witness, was grievous in nature. This witness has also stated that the injuries noticed by him could have been caused by the knife produced before him for examination. This witness has further stated that looking to the precarious condition of the injured she was referred to Medical College, Raipur for proper treatment.

¶28

10.Having thus seen the evidence of the important witnesses such as the victim herself, Bhagwati (PW-1) whom the injured made a disclosure in the hospital that her husband had dealt knife blows to her, Narendra yadav (PW-3) and Haradhan (PW-7)-both seizure witnesses, and the doctor (PW-8), this Court has no hesitation to say that the findings recorded by the Court below holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 307 IPC are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and therefore, no interference by this Court is required.

¶29

As regards sentence, looking to the fact that out of the sentence imposed of 5 years, the accused appellant has already remained inside for more than 4 years, that the accused/appellant as of now appears to be in his late sixties and that he has already suffered the long drawn prosecution right from the occurence, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period already undergone. Order accordingly.

¶30

The accused/appellant is directed to be set free forthwith if not

¶31

¶32

required in any other case.

¶33

Appeal is thus allowed in part with the observation and to the

¶34

extent indicated above.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶37

Judge

¶38

Jyotishi

Gangaram Chauhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangaram Chauhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bukki @ Tunni Dhanraj Salunke Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Soni @ Sonu Pardhi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Yagendra Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh