Partly allowed

Gyani @ Gyan Singh Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2023CRA/909/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside the lower court's finding for Section 324 IPC and upheld conviction under Section 307 IPC due to serious injuries likely to cause death. The sentence was commuted from 7 to 4 years rigid imprisonment pending surrender.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 307 IPC maintained; sentence commuted from 7 years to 4 years rigorous imprisonment; bail cancelled; surrender ordered.

Gyani @ Gyan Singh Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Judgment Reserved on 18/07 /2023 Judgment Passed on 01/08 /2023 CRA No. 909 of 200 4

¶5

Gyani alias Gyan Singh Verma S/o Radheshayam Verma aged about 22 years, R/o Kushaalpur, Awadhiyapara, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through : P.S., Purani Basti, Raipur District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant	: Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Adv.
For Respondent/State	: Mr. Devesh Verma, G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶12

CAV Judgment

¶13

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2004 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.), in S.T. No. 320/2000 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under :-

¶14

Conviction Sentence R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of U/s 307 of IPC payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 6 months.

¶15

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.04.2000, complainant Sunil Dewangan reached his shop for opening situated at Navbharat Chowk, Kankali Para. At that time the appellant along with another co-accused Chhotu @ Vijay Sony reached there using filthy language and assaulted with

¶16

¶17

the help of the knife. The appellant/accused assaulted with the help of a knife the complainant on his chest, complainant shouted for help. On being heard some people came to the spot and interfered. During the said assault caused by the appellant, the complainant was injured. A quarrel had also taken place between the appellant and complainant in the matter of gambling during the Holi festival before the said incident. The complainant lodged a report immediately after the incident took place at the police station Purani Basti, from where injured Sunil Dewangan was sent for medical examination and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur.

¶18

So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statement of the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. The appellant has adduced one witness in his defence.

¶19

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2004, learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction is illegal, arbitrary and perverse of the law. The prosecution case was not supported by any eyewitnesses, as the only eyewitness P.W.-1Dhanesh Pansari, turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. He next submits that the case is purely based upon circumstantial evidence and has not been supported by any individual witness. He also submits that the prosecution case has not been supported by the PW-2 (Suresh Kumar

¶21

¶22

Bagdi). The appellant is an innocent person and has no connection with the said crime, as the prosecution has made him accused only on the basis of the statement of the complainant about previous enmity, while the prosecution has failed to prove its case, therefore, the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside. Apart from the above submissions he also submits that the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out and only the offence under Section 324 of IPC is made out against the appellant. It is also prayed that the appellant has already undergone about 9 months, the matter has been pending since 2000 and no purpose would be served to send back the appellant to jail. Therefore he may be sentenced with the period already undergone by him. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Kamlesh Vs. State of Allahabad , passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2474 of 1982 on 17.09.2018.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant.

¶24

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

¶25

Injured Sunil Dewangan (PW-4) has stated in his court statement that he owns a shop named Lakshmi Tailors at Kankalipara, Navbharat Chowk and on 20.04.2000 at about 09.30 am, the appellant Gyani and co-accused Chhotu (absconding accused) came to him and said about the old dispute that why the cycle was not given on that day on demand? When he said that giving the cycle was not a big deal, he was given the cycle earlier also, in the meanwhile, the appellant took out the knife and hit him in the chest, then in the right side of the stomach, then below it and further down in total 4 times. Thereafter, co-accused Chhotu also stabbed him, which was on the inside of

¶26

¶27

his right hand, above the elbow. Appellant Gyani wanted to kill him. When Dhanesh Pansari (PW-1) came and shouted, will you kill him? Then the accused had fled away from the spot. Complainant Sunil Dewangan has remained in his statement during the cross-examination, which has clearly stated the infliction of multiple stab wounds by the appellant (Gyani). On the report of Sunil Dewangan, Sub-Inspector B.S. Rathore (P.W.-7) registered the FIR vide Ex.-P3 on the same day, which is the named report against the appellant and the absconding accused, without any delay. This confirms the statement of the injured Sunil Dewangan.

¶28

Dhanesh Pansari (PW-1), the second important witness of the incident, has stated in the court statement that he had seen Sunil Dewangan lying in a bleeding condition near the boring in front of Sunil Dewangan's shop in Kankalipara. When he reached there, he saw a man running away. On asking the complainant- Sunil Dewangan there, he said that he was assaulted by a boy named Gyani. Then he brought Sunil to the police station. Thus, the stating of the name of the appellant by Sunil to Dhanesh (PW-1) as the injured, being a part of the sequence of events, is admissible and significant evidence under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the statement of complainant Sunil Dewangan has also been confirmed by the statement of Dhanesh Pansari (PW-1) that he was stabbed by the appellant Gyani.

¶29

Sushil Kumar Bagdi (PW-2) stated in his court statement that he saw from the balcony of his house that Sunil was covered in blood. When he asked, he said that he had been stabbed. On the question of who had stabbed, Sushil Kumar Bagdi has not supported the prosecution case and has denied his police statement. It has been told that Dhanesh Pansari (PW1) also went there. Dhanesh Pansari (PW-1) has confirmed the fact that the injured Sunil Dewangan himself told that he was assaulted by Gyani.

¶30

¶31

Therefore, the statement of witness Sushil Kumar Bagdi (PW-2) not only corroborates the situation of Dhanesh Pansari reaching the spot but is also established from the statement of Sushil Kumar Bagdi (PW-2) that he immediately after the incident, saw the injured Sunil Dewangan.

¶32

Urmila Bai (PW-3), who is the mother of the injured Sunil Dewangan, stated that on getting the information she went and saw her son Sunil Dewangan in the hospital. According to Urmila Bai, on being asked in the hospital, injured Sunil Dewangan told her that the appellants Gyani and Chhotu had stabbed him with a knife over a dispute over a bicycle. It is worth mentioning that Sunil Dewangan's mother Urmila Bai has confirmed the fact that two days before the incident, two boys came to her house and asked to kill Sunil, with whom there was a dispute over the bicycle. Since the report of the incident was written immediately, on the same day in the hospital, mother Urmila Bai inquired, on which the complainant Sunil named the appellant as the one who assaulted him. Therefore, the statement of the complainant is also corroborated by the statement of mother Urmila Bai.

¶33

In the evidence recorded under Section 313 of IPC, the appellant Gyani has only said that he has been falsely implicated. Whereas Pramod Kumar Tiwari (DW-1) has stated about the conduct of the complainant Sunil Dewangan. Pramod Kumar Tiwari (DW-1) is not aware of any dispute between the parties. In such a situation, the appellant does not get any benefit from the statement of DW-1.

¶34

The knife has been seized in the case, on the basis of the memorandum of statement of co-accused Chhotu. Since Chhotu is absconding, the evidence in that regard is not yet being recorded. The knife has been examined by a doctor along with the knife. The clothes of the injured were also sent to the laboratory for chemical examination, but no test

¶35

¶36

report has been received.

¶37

It is clear from the above discussion that the trial court has not committed any error in concluding that the complainant- Sunil Dewangan was stabbed by the appellant Gyani.

¶38

The argument of the appellant party is basically on the point that the case under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out, but the case under Section 324 IPC is made out. In this case, the appellant has been detained in custody for about 09 months. Therefore, he should be released after punishing him only to the extent of that period, because the incident happened 23 years ago. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kamlesh v. State of Allahabad , passed in Cr.A. No. 2474 of 1982 decided on 17.09.2018. In which the crime of the appellant was considered to be under Section 324 of IPC instead of under Section 307 of IPC, due to the only one injury of the Farsa.

¶39

Keeping in view the above argument, the evidence adduced regarding the injuries of the injured Sunil Dewangan is being seen.

¶40

Dr. Wasim (PW-10) who was then posted in the surgery department of the Medical College, Raipur. He stated that on 20.04.2000 at about 10.15 am, the injured Sunil Dewangan was brought, he said that he was assaulted with a hard and sharp object. He was in a conscious state, then he was found to have the following injuries:-

¶41

The cut wound was on the left side of the lumbar region, its size was 3 x 2 cm, which was 4 cm behind the interior superior iliac spine, it was bleeding and there was a blood clot. To measure its depth, a tube was inserted, which was about 10 cm, whose direction was upwards.

¶42

The second cut wound of size 2 x 1 cm was on the left gluteal region, which was 8 cm away from the sacrum bone, there was no bleeding and the depth was 3 cm, its direction was upwards and

¶43

¶44

towards the middle.

¶45

The third cut wound was in the right hand, whose size was 2 x 5 cm, which was up to the depth of the skin, and there was no bleeding in it.

¶46

The fourth cut wound which was on the right side of the fifth rib of size 2.5 x 1 cm was bleeding and had air sinking. On measuring it, it was found that the inner membrane was cut. There was also surgical emphysema around this wound.

¶47

There was a cut wound whose size was 5 cm x 2 cm deep on the left lumbar part of the body.

¶48

Dr. Wasim (PW-10) has stated the original bed head ticket of 20 pages of injured Sunil Dewangan vide Ex.-P-16. His evidence has not been challenged in cross-examination.

¶49

Similarly, Dr. J.P. Dewangan (PW-9) after examining the injured Sunil Dewangan on 20.04.2000 has given his report vide Ex.-P-8/A, and has stated that he had found the following injuries:-

¶50

Incised wound measures 2 cm x 1 cm depth on the chest.

¶51

1.5 cm x 1 cm depth on the left buttock.

¶52

In left lumbar (above waist) measuring 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm.

¶53

1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 deep was in the middle of the right arm.

¶54

0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm was on the left abdomen.

¶55

Dr. J.P. Dewangan (PW-9) has opined that all the above five injuries were inflicted by sharp-edged weapons, which were within a span of 6 hours. The nature of injuries number- 1, 3 was serious and the nature of injuries number- 2, 4 and 5 was simple.

¶56

Dr. J.P. Dewangan (PW-9) has given a report vide Ex.-P-14/A on the query of the police, according to which the injuries found on the injured could have been caused by the knife brought for examination, which could have resulted in his death. Thus, on the basis of the seized knife and the nature of the injury, the death of the injured Sunil Dewangan is said to be probable.

¶57

¶58

After considering the nature of the injury and considering the argument of the appellant, it is noteworthy that in the case of precedent produced by the appellant, the injury was described as an injury of the simple nature of the sole. But in front of me, the injuries caused to the injured Sunil Dewangan in this case are on the chest, abdomen and upper part of the waist, being the most sensitive parts. According to the statement of Dr. Wasim (PW-10), the internal organs of the injured were also cut. Wounds are inflicted by a sharp object like a knife on a place like the stomach. The number of wounds is not one, but many. There is no single injury like in the produced case. Due to the difference of facts, the benefit of the said judgment is not given to the appellant.

¶59

The manner in which complainant Sunil Dewangan has many wounds on the sensitive parts with the pointed and sharp weapon. The internal organs are also cut. The medical opinion is also to the effect that it was probable that he would have died from the injuries. The injured Sunil Dewangan himself has also said that the appellant Gyani wanted to kill him. Looking to the entire circumstances, it is found that there was an attempt to murder the victim Sunil Dewangan. At this stage, when this attempt was made by the appellant Gyani. Therefore, this Court finds that the conviction of the appellant Gyani by the Trial Court for attempting to murder the complainant Sunil Dewangan under Section 307 IPC is based on clear and reliable evidence. Therefore, there is no need to interfere in any way with the conviction in question.

¶60

So far as the sentence is concerned, it is clear that the incident happened about 23 years ago. The age of the appellant Gyani was about 22 years at that time. Thus, at present, his age is 45 years. He has been sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. He has been in custody for about 9 months. The nature of the

¶61

¶62

offence is serious. Based on the above reasons, some leniency in the sentence would be appropriate. However it is not found appropriate to limit the entire jail sentence to the custody period.

¶63

The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed on the point of the sentence while confirming the conviction. The sentence awarded to the appellant Gyani for the offence under Section 307 of IPC is commuted from 7 years of rigorous imprisonment to 4 years of rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount is kept as it is. The custody period of the appellant during the trial and appeal shall be adjusted in the jail sentence inflicted upon him. The bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled. He will surrender before the trial court expeditiously to serve the remaining sentence.

¶64

In view of the above, the appeal is partly dismissed on the point of conviction and partly allowed on the question of sentence.

¶65

The record of the trial court along with the copy of the judgment of this Court be sent immediately for necessary action and compliance.

¶66

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶67

H.L. Sahu

Gyani @ Gyan Singh Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyani @ Gyan Singh Verma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sant Lal @ Santoo and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Somaru Harijan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Yadav and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pintu Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh