Kanhaiya @ Billu Satnami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

Order Sheet

¶3

CRA No. 271 of 2011

¶4

Kanhaiya @ Billu Satnami Versus State Of Chhattisgarh

¶5

27.02.2024	None for the appellant.
	Ms. Prabha Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for the Respondent/ State. On 30/11/2023 also no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. Mr. K.K. Dewangan, who is empanelled in the list of Panel Lawyers of High Court Legal Services Committee and who is present before the court and requested to appear on the case on behalf of the appellant to defend him. The Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to issue necessary authorization in favour of Mr. K.K. Dewangan from the appellant side. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and judgment is dictated separately.
Sagrika	Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal ) Judge

27.02.2024

None for the appellant.

Ms. Prabha Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, for the Respondent/ State.
On 30/11/2023 also no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Mr. K.K. Dewangan, who is empanelled in the list of Panel Lawyers of
High Court Legal Services Committee and who is present before the court
and requested to appear on the case on behalf of the appellant to defend
him.
The Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to
issue necessary authorization in favour of Mr. K.K. Dewangan from the
appellant side.
With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard and
judgment is dictated separately.

Sagrika

Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal )
Judge

¶6

-1-

¶7

NAFR

¶8

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶9

CRA No. 271 of 2011

¶10

1 - Kanhaiya @ Billu Satnami

¶11

S/o Umed Das Satnami, Present R/o Gajra Chowk, P.S.-Tarbahar, Distt.Bilaspur, C.G.

¶12

---- Appellant Versus

¶13

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Tarbahar, Dist- Bilaspur (CG)

¶14

---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. K.K. Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on board

¶16

27.02.2024.

¶17

1. This appeal arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18/03/2011 passed by 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Session Trial No. 86/2010 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 307/34 of IPC and sentenced him R.I of 07 years with fine of Rs.500/- , in default of payment of fine amount, further R.I. for six months.

¶18

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 01/03/2010, the mother of the victim Hira Bai (PW-1) has lodged a report to the Police, with the effect that on 01.03.2010 at about 3.00 in the night, the persons of the vicinity were celebrating Holy Festival. At that time, the appellant came there and has broken the beating drum of her son Vinod and when he protested the appellant has assaulted him by knife on his back and cheek, Sanjay Satnami too has assaulted the victim Vinod by Lathi. On the report of PW- 1 Hira Bai, the FIR (Ex-P/1) was registered against the appellant and another co-accused Sanjay

¶19

-2-

¶20

Satnami for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC. The victim was sent for his medical examination to District Hospital Bilaspur where Dr. Ashutosh Tiwari ( PW- 5) has examined him and gave his report in the back side of (Ex- P/4a) while examining the victim the doctor has found following injuries on his body:-

¶21

Incised wound present on right cheek vertically Size 5 X ½ cm upto muscle deep margins are sharp.

¶22

Incised wound present on right side of back Size 6 X 1 cm upto depth? Air coming from wound (from Lungs) (Stab wound) .

¶23

3. After examination, the patient was referred to CIMS for further treatment. A query was made by the Police from the doctor vide (ExP/5a) and in reply to that the doctor has opined that the injury no. 2 is grievous in nature. The PW-12 Dr. Archana Singh has rediolodically examined the victim and after his examination she gave her report (Ex-P/14) on which she found that:-

¶24

Right CP angle is blunt due to hydro pneumothorax.

¶25

Mild soft tissue emphysema at the lateral chest wall.

¶26

4. The victim was also sent for surgery department where PW- 11 Dr. R.K. Pandey has treated him and after treatment, the victim was being discharged from hospital on 13.03.2010 and his medical examination report is (Ex P/13). The pant and shirt of the victim was sized vide seizure memo Ex-P/5. The appellant was arrested on 12/03/2010. The knife was seized from him vide seizure memo ExP/4. The co-accused Sanjay was also arrested on 15/04/2012. The statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur for the offence

¶27

-3-

¶28

under Section 307/34 of IPC. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur from where transferred it to the learned Trial Court. The charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant and the co-accused Sanjay Satnami. The Trial Court has framed charge under Section 307/34 of IPC against the present appellant and co-accused Sanjay Satnami. The accused persons have denied the charge and claimed trial.

¶29

5. In order to establish the charge against the appellant and coaccused, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. The statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded in which they denied the material appears against them and plead innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence.

¶30

6. After appreciation of the evidence available on record, the trial Court has acquitted the co-accused Sanjay Satnami from the charge of Section 307/34 of IPC whereas the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in Para- 1 of this judgment hence this appeal.

¶31

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. He would further submit that there are material omission and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that it was the day of Holy festival and number of persons were celebrating the Holy festival and in between that celebration, the victim has received injuries by falling nearby the place of rough stone by which he received injuries and since the beating drum of

¶32

-4-

¶33

the complainant was being broken, he lodged the report against the present appellant. In alternative, he would submit that if the Hon’ble court is found that the appellant has made assault to the victim, the offence does not travel beyond the scope of Section 325 of IPC for causing grievous injuries to the victim. He would further submit that there is no report from the treating doctor that the injuries are sufficient to cause death to the victim. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

¶34

8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Giving blow by knife by the appellant over the body of the victim is proved by the victim himself and by other witnesses. The knife has been seized from the appellant. Immediately, the report has been lodged. Even if there is no report from the doctor that the injury found on the body of the victim could have caused his death, the offence cannot be diluted because the injury was found on the vital part of the body of the victim that too by a sharp-edged weapon and deep upto the lungs and therefore the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence needs no interference.

¶35

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶36

10. PW- 2 Vinod, who is the victim of the present case, has stated in his deposition that in the night when they were celebrating Holy festival along with the persons of vicinity, the appellant came there and had broken the beating drum of and went away. After sometime at about 2.30 in the night, the appellant along with 2-3 other persons came

¶37

-5-

¶38

there and the appellant made a knife blow on his back and right cheek. Thereafter he went in unconsciousness. In crossexamination, he admitted that at the time of Holy festival, most of the persons were intoxicated condition and they were engaged in hurling abuses. He has stated that on the place of incident his mother Hira Bai, Golu, Mukesh, Promod and Ravi were present. He further admitted that he too were intoxicated condition on that day and consumed Ganja. He denied in his cross-examination that he has falsely implicated the appellant in the offence.

¶39

11. PW- 1 Hira Bai, who has lodged the FIR, has stated in her deposition that on the day of Holy festival, they were celebrating in the night. The appellant Billu came there and raised quarrel with the persons of vicinity and left the place. After sometime they again came there and the appellant has given a knife blow on the back and cheek of the victim Vinod and fled away from that place. The victim was being taken to the District Hospital where he remained hospitalised for about 14-15 days. She has lodged report to the Tarbahar Police Station. In cross-examination, she remained firm in saying that the accused Billu has given a knife blow on the back and cheek of her son/ victim Vinod.

¶40

12. PW-3 Pramod, PW- 4 Golu Sahu and PW- 6 Ravi are the eye witnesses of the incident and they have stated that the appellant Billu has assaulted the victim Vinod by knife by which the victim has received injuries and then he went in unconsciousness. But for minor omissions and contradictions these witnesses have remained firm in saying that it is the appellant who has given a knife blow on the victim.

¶41

-6-

¶42

13. From the evidence of PW- 2, the victim Vinod and the eye witnesses of the case PW- 1 Hira Bai, PW-3 Pramod, PW- 4 Golu Sahu and PW- 6 Ravi Pandey, the complicity of the appellant in crime in question has been proved that the caused injuries to the victim on his back and right cheek by knife.

¶43

14. So far as the nature of injuries are concerned. The doctor PW-5 Dr. Ashutosh Tiwari, has stated that on 01/03/2010 he medically examined the victim and found two injuries on his body. One is incised wound on his right cheek and second is incised wound on the right side of his back. He opined that the injuries are grievous in nature . The other doctor, PW- 12, Dr. Archana Singh who has rediologically examined the victim, has not opined that the injuries are grievous in nature or fatal to life rather she admitted that the injuries on the body of the victim could have been caused by falling on the sharp-edged surface. The other doctor, PW- 11 Dr. R.K. Pandey, who has treated the victim on CIMS, Bilaspur, has also not given any report about the nature of injuries or that injuries are fatal to his life. The only evidence with regard to the nature of injuries is available on record that is PW- 5 Dr. Ashutosh Tiwari who has stated that the injuries are grievous in nature. Since, the injuries has not been found to fatal to life and only grievous in nature, it cannot be said that the appellant was intended to cause murder of the victim.

¶44

15. From the foregoing reasons the offence alleged does not travel beyond the scope of Section 325 of IPC. Section 325 of IPC has not provided for any minimum sentence. The appellant is facing lis since 2010 and at present he has already settled in his family life. The appellant has remained in jail for about one year and 41 days. For the offence of Section 325 of IPC, the sentence of one year and 41 days would be sufficient looking to the nature

¶45

-7-

¶46

of dispute between the parties, thus, the conviction of the appellant is altered to Section 325 of IPC from Section 307 of IPC and his conviction under Section 307 of IPC is set aside and the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced for period already undergone by him. The appellant remained in jail from 12.03.2010 to 28.04.2011 which comes about 01 year and 41 days.

¶47

16. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall continue for a further period of six months as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The record of the Trial Court is sent back along with the copy of this order.

¶48

17. The present appeal is partly allowed.

¶49

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶50

sagrika

Kanhaiya @ Billu Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya @ Billu Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govinda Kumar Dewangan Vs Poonam Dewangan

Nahida Bano Vs Najruddin Shekh

Shivnath Prasad Tiwari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kartikram Agariya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sai. Rafik Ahmed Vs Sai. Hidayat Hussain @ Aashique Hussain