Partly allowed

Narayan Kaushal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Feb 2025CRA/116/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 325 IPC for a stick assault arising from a land dispute between relatives. The court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and ordered release.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone (~1 year 4 months); conviction maintained; appellant released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Narayan Kaushal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:6689

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 116 of 2025

¶6

1 - Narayan Kaushal S/o Lt. Jhaduram Kaushal Aged About 47 Years Caste - Maher, R/o Bheja Ground, P.S. Gurur, District Balod (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent

¶10

For Appellant	: Ms.	K. Radhika, Advocate
For Respondent /State	: Ms.	Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA

¶11

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶12

Judgment on Board

¶13

05/02/2025

¶14

Heard.

¶15

Heard on I.A. No.2/2025 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. This appeal is barred by 16 days.

¶16

On due consideration and being satisfied with the reasons stated in the application (I.A. No.2/2025), the same is allowed and the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶17

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

¶18

The instant criminal appeal under Section 415 (2) of the BNSS has been

¶19

ASHUTOSHMISHRA Digitally signedby ASHUTOSHMISHRADate:2025.03.0515:17:24+0530

¶20

¶21

preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10/10/2024 passed by the First Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod, C.G. in S.T. No.06/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional S.I. for 01 year.

¶22

The prosecution case in brief is that the applicant Ravindra Kumar Kaushal lodged an oral report at the police station Gurur on 06.09.2021 alleging that he is a resident of village Jangli Bheja. His father works for Dr. Pradeep Jain and he lives with his father in Balod and works in computer shop and CCTV camera fitting. His grandfather Baluram Kaushal, grandmother Geetarheen Bai, uncle Santram Kaushal live together in village Jangli Bheja. On the date of incident i.e. on 18.08.2021 at 04:30 pm, he was installing a CCTV camera in Ganjpara Balod, at the same time his grandmother called him on his mobile from the village and told him that when his grandfather Baluram Kaushal had gone to Chanda Doli Khar field, at that time Narayan Kaushal started disputing with him on the matter of land dispute, and abused him in filthy language and threatening to kill him and he has also assaulted him on the head with a stick, due to which blood is oozing from his head. On receiving the above information, he went to his village and saw that his grandfather was sitting at home and blood was oozing from his head, and he had injuries on his waist and right shoulder also. On being asked it was told that he had gone to Chandi Doli field, where

¶23

¶24

Narayan Kaushal, in connection with the land dispute, abused him & assaulted him on the head with a stick. Ruprai God of his village witnessed the incident. Thereafter, the appellant took his grandfather Baluram Kaushal to District Hospital, Balod and got him admitted, where he was treated. On the above oral report of the complainant, a case under IPC was registered against the accused by Gurur Police Station. A First Information Report was filed under Sections 294, 506C, 323 of the IPC and investigation proceedings were carried out in the case and the accused was arrested. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 294, 506-B, 323 and 307 of the IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balod.

¶25

The appellant abjured his guilt during the trial and claimed to be tried. The prosecution on its behalf examined as many as 11 witnesses. The learned trial Court after evaluating the facts & evidence convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the eye witness Rooprai Gond (PW-7) stated that firstly the victim Balu Ram had attacked the applicant thereafter in order to defend himself, the applicant had attacked. He would next contend that some of the witnesses have turned hostile and there are contradiction and omission in the statement of the witnesses. He would lastly contend that under these circumstances the appellant may be acquitted and the appeal may be allowed.

¶27

¶28

Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence.

¶30

Injured Baluram in his evidence has stated that on the date of incident the accused, after drinking liquor, beat him on his head and shoulder with a stick saying that he will kill him and in the X-ray report of injured Baluram, it has been proved that injured Baluram had sustained serious injury due to fracture in the bone of head. Similarly, on the basis of memorandum statement Ex. P-15 of the accused, the stick of Senha wood used in the incident was seized.

¶31

Thereafter, the full shirt and towel worn by the injured Baluram at the time of the incident were seized from his possession and seizure memo was prepared and on behalf of the prosecution, the stick used by the accused in the incident, the towel and the full shirt stained with blood of the injured Baluram were sent for FSL test, wherein in the FSL report the presence of human blood in the seized senha wooden stick has not been proved, but the presence of human blood of "AB" blood group in the full shirt of the injured Baluram has been proved. Although the injured Baluram's blood group has not been mentioned in the examination report Ex.P.-4 conducted by the examination officer Dr.

¶32

¶33

Dharm Dhananjay, but the evidence of the injured Baluram and the eyewitnesses of the incident has proved that the injured Baluram had suffered a serious injury on his head as a result of being beaten with a senha wooden stick by the accused on the date of the incident.

¶34

Eyewitnesses of the incident, Rooprai God (PW-7) and Hemraj Kovachhi (PW-10) in their evidence, contrary to the statements of injured Baluram Mahar, have stated that on the date of incident, injured Baluram Mahar had first beaten accused Narayan Kaushal with a stick. Since witnesses Rooprai God (PW-7) and Hemraj Kovachhi (PW-10) are eyewitnesses of the incident, there is no sufficient reason to doubt their statements, due to which, from the evidence of the said eyewitnesses, injured Baluram Mahar was proved to be innocent on the date of incident.

¶35

From over all discussion of the evidence and considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of injury sustained by the injured, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 325 IPC.

¶36

The appellant having already remained in jail for about 01 year & 04 Months i.e. 08/10/2021 to 04/11/2022, thereafter, from the date of judgment he is in jail, has thus undergone sentence of about one year four months. The above sentence already suffered by the appellant is considered adequate for the offence under Section 325 IPC. It is also to be mentioned that there is no previous criminal record of the

¶37

¶38

appellant and it is a land dispute between the appellant and the accused and they are relatives.

¶39

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellant is held guilty under Section 325 IPC and is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

¶40

SD/-

¶41

(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶42

ashu

Narayan Kaushal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Kaushal 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

Shivkumar Jhariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pilaram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmin Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Pushpa Tiwari Vs Shri Gireesh Kumar Shrivastava

Aaa Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Beniram Sinha Vs Smt. Divya Umesh Mishra, Director