Mahadev Barsa @ Kola Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (henceforth “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25^th June, 2022 passed by Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 61 of 2020, whereby he has been convicted & sentenced in following manner :-

¶17

	Conviction	Sentence
Under	Section 323 of the Indian	Rigorous imprisonment for six
Penal	Code	month and fine of Rs. 500/-, in

¶18

2

¶19

	default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one month.
Under Section 324 of the IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for three month.
	Both the sentences have been
	directed to run concurrently.

¶20

2 . Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that there was family dispute between appellant / accused and family of complainant – Chhanu Barsa (PW-1), on account of which, on 07.07.2020 at about 6 PM, appellant/accused assaulted Somdi Barsa (mother of complainant) by means of handle of axe, due to which, she sufferred simple injuries, thereafter, he also assaulted Ramu Barsa (brother of complainant) by means of axe with an intention to kill him, due to which, he sustained injuries on the right side of his chest and cheek and beard. On being report lodged by Chhannu Barsa, FIR (Ex.P-1) bearing Crime No. 59 /2020 was registered against the appellant/accused under Section 307 of the IPC. Injured namely Ramu Barsa was medically examined by Dr. Desh Deepak (PW-7), axe was seized from accused/appellant vide seizure memo (Ex.P-4), blood stained clothes were seized from injured Ramu Barsa vide seizure memo (Ex. P-5). Due to the injuries sustained by injured Ramu Barsa, he remained hospitalized in the District Hospital, Dantewada for about 10 days i.e. from 07.07.2020 to 17.07.2020.

¶21

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant/accused under Section 307 of the IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantewada, who, in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Dantewada, for trial. The trial Court framed charge under Sections 323 & 307 of

¶22

3

¶23

the IPC and the same was read and explained to the appellant, who abjured his guilt and claimed trial.

¶24

4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents in support of his case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in crime in question. No defence witness has been examined in support of the appellant / accused.

¶25

5. After completion of trial, learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentence the appellant, as has has been mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment, modifying the offence under Section 307 of IPC to the offence under Section 324 of the IPC in respect of injuries caused by appellant/accused to injured Ramu Barsa.

¶26

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

¶27

7. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant submits that she is not pressing this appeal as regards conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine her arguments to the sentence part thereof only. She further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that any of injuries sustained to the victims are of grievous in nature. She further submits that since there was property dispute prior to present incident between the parties, therefore, simple altercation was took place and injuries was not caused to the victims from edge of the axe, rather injuries caused to victims are simple in nature. She submits that in instant case appellant has remained in jail from 08.07.2020 to 20.05.2021 during trial and from 25.06.2022 to 29.11.2022 after his conviction and releasing him on his personal bond vide order dated

¶28

4

¶29

29.11.2022 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court, thus, he has already served jail sentence for about 15 months, hence, interest of justice would be served if the jail sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶30

8. To this proposition of counsel for the accused/appellant, State Counsel has no objection.

¶31

9. Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that appellant/accused have served out the jail sentence for the period from 8.7.2020 to 20.05.2021 during trial and after pronouncement of the judgment by the Sessions Court i.e. from 25.06.2022 to 29.11.2022, after his conviction and release on bail, thus, he has already served jail sentence for about 15 months; this court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping them in detention any further and interest of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶32

10. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellant is maintained, as also imposition of punishment of fine is also maintained but jail sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶33

11. The appellant is said to be on bail. His bail bond shall remain in force for a further period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 481 of the of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶34

12. Record of the Sessions Judge alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and needful, if any.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

AMITKUMARDUBEY Digitally signedby AMITKUMAR DUBEYDate:2025.09.2313:34:34 +0530

¶37

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)) Judge

¶38

5

Mahadev Barsa @ Kola v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadev Barsa @ Kola 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

Lilavati Devi Vs Nathuni Singh

Managing Director, C.S.P.D.C.L Vs Smt. Shanti Bai

Dinesh Kumar Pandey Vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

Vishal Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Chandra Prabha Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gurmukh Das Menghani HUF Vs Union of India