Partly allowed

Barmaram Korram v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Dec 2024CRA/549/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court affirmed the conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempted murder but reduced the sentence from seven years to the period already undergone by the appellant, who had been in custody for over five years pending this appeal.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained under Section 307 IPC; sentence reduced to the period already undergone; appellant released from jail.

Barmaram Korram Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 7

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 549 of 2020

¶5

Barmaram Korram S/o Jageshar Ram Korram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Paddatola, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶6

... Appellant.

¶7

versus

¶8

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

For appellant. : Mr.	Punit Ruparel, Advocate.
For Respondent/State. : Ms.	Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer

¶11

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

10/12/2024

¶14

This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12-3-2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Case No 30 of 2019

¶15

2 / 7

¶16

whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay fine ofm Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo additional RI for one month.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that appellant is the husband of the victim namely Shailendri Bai. FIR bearing Crime No 10 of 2019 has been registered in Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon alleging that the report was lodged by the Peon working in the Community Health Centre, Ambagarh Chowki, on the basis of medical report given by Dr. Shreya Chandrakar (PW/10), according to which it has been held that the appellant assaulted his wife by brick on her head and thereafter dragged her in front of the house and also assaulted by vegetable knife on her neck and stone as as result of which she sustained grievous injurious. It is also case of the prosecution that the wife and her husband / present appellant made allegations to each other each and on this the appellant picked up brick which he has brought with him and assaulted on the head of his wife, as a result of which she fell on the ground and also threatened to kill her, thereafter he assaulted her wife with stone and also assaulted her neck by knife (generally use for cutting vegetables) and thereafter he fled away from the spot. On the basis of statement of complainant Hemant Komre (PW/4), Peon, Community Health Cenetre, Ambagarh Chowk and medical report of Dr. Shreya Chandrakar (PW/10), FIR was lodged who was looking after home affairs at home made allegations against. On the basis of which Police have registered the aforesaid offence against the appellant.

¶18

3 / 7

¶19

After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against them for offence punishable under Sections 307 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, , who in turn committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, in which the appellant abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.

¶20

Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false implication. The appellant has not examined any witnsss in his defence.

¶21

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses ie., Rameswari (PW/1), Giridhari Dhanendra (PW/2), Victim Shailendra Bai (PW/3), Hemant Komre (PW/4), Kavya Jain (PW/5), Dhanavram Halba (PW/6), Binda Bai (PW/7), Anjore Singh (PW/8), Shyam Tavre (PW/9) Dr. Shreya Chandrakar (PW/10) and Pradeep Sore (PW/11) and exhibited documents ie., exhibited 25 documents. Police statement of Rameshwari (Ex.P/1), memorandum (Es.P/2), Seizure memo (Ex.P/3), spot map (Ex.P/4), arrest memo (Ex.OP/5), notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C (Ex.P/6), seizure memo (Ex,.P/7), FIR and spot map (Ex.P/8), application for spot map (Ex.P./9), statement of the victim (Ex.P/10), application for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses (Ex.P/11), statement of Anjore Singh (EP/12), MLC report (Ex.P/13), application for query (Ex.P/14), report (Ex.P/15), Seizure (ExP/16), query report (Ex.P/17), information regarding arrest (Ex.P/19), application for recording statement

¶22

4 / 7

¶23

(Ex,.P/20), application for sending articles to FSL (Ex.P/21), receipt of articles of FSL (Ex.P/22), FSL report (Ex.P/23), notice regarding statement (Ex.P/24) and application for issuance of bed head ticket (Ex,.P/25).

¶24

Learned trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no reliable eye witness examined by the prosecution and the whole case is based on circumstantial evidence, but the prosecution has failed to prove completely of circumstantial evidence. It is well settled principle of law that if there are some links missing then the benefit must have been given to the accused persons and the learned trial Court has committed serious error of law and fact by holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and gave perverse findings. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned trial Court convicted the appellants and, therefore, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted.

¶26

Alternatively, he would submit that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2019, this appeal

¶27

5 / 7

¶28

is pending since 2019, this Court has granted bail to the appellant on 18-4-2024 but the appellant has not furnished the bail bond as such remained in jail for more than five years nine months and twenty three days till date. He would further submit that since there is no minimum sentence prescribed under the aforesaid Sections, the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him..

¶29

Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ramashish Yadav and others Versus State of Bihar , reported in (1999) 8 SCC 555 and in the matter of State of M.P. Versus Mishrilal (Dead) and others , reported in (2003) 9 SCC 426.

¶30

Ex adverso , learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that the learned trial Court after minute appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 307, therefore, there is no scope for interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

¶31

I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment of the lower Court.

¶32

It is clear from record of learned trial Court that the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses to support its case against the accused person. All the prosecution witnesses have supported the statements of the injured person.

¶33

6 / 7

¶34

Dr. Shreeya Chandrakar PW/10) examined the victim (PW/3) on 17-12019 and found injuries on the body of the victim. There was grievous injury over neck in the size of 8 x 1 x 1 cm and second injury on her head in the size of 4 x 3 x deep injury, abrasion in her face, injury in upper leap in right side in the size of .5x.5x.5 cm, vide his reports Ex.P.13.

¶35

Victim Shailendra Bai (PW/10) who is wife of the present appellant has stated that on the date of incident her husband /appellant made, false allegations against her and he assaulted her by brick on her head and thereafter cut her neck by knife as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries and she fell down and thereafter neighbors took her to hospital for medical treatment.

¶36

Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence including the medical reports and medical evidence and thereby convicted the appellant under Sections 307 of IPC. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence of witnesses and medical evidence, so the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC is affirmed.

¶37

As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that incident took place in the year 2019 and the appellant remained in jail for five, years, nine months and twenty three days, he has no criminal antecedents, hence taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the

¶38

7 / 7

¶39

sentence awarded under Section 307 of IPC to the appellant by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶40

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him..

¶41