Sewak Ram Khunte Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:52729

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 139 of 2015

¶6

1 - Sewak Ram Khunte, S/o Late Shyamratan Khunte, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village - Paraswani, Police Station - Suhela, at Present Bandhwapara, Purani Basti, Civil and Revenue District - Raipur C.G.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Gudhiyari, District - Raipur C.G.

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant	:Mr. Dheerendra Prasad Mishra,
	Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State	:Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

29/10/2025

¶15

The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.01.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.

¶16

2

¶17

138/2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year.

¶18

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the date of incident i.e. on 29.04.2014 at about 5:45 p.m., the complainant was sitting in his office with assistant Pinky Dubey. At the same time, the accused Sevak Ram Khute, a worker working in his factory, came with an iron rod and started telling the complainant to settle the accounts and not to work and when the complainant asked reason for not working in his factory, the accused got agitated and with the intention of killing him, hit him hard on the head with the iron rod, causing him to fall down. The appellant tried to kill him again, but it failed. Upon raising alarm by Pinky Dubey, witnesses Mahendra, Mohit Rajput and others arrived at the scene. The accused fled away from there. The injured complainant was admitted to Om Hospital, Badhaipara, Raipur, for treatment. Information vide Ex.P./11 was sent to Police Station- Maudahapara. Assistant Sub-inspector Shravan Kumar Mishra (P.W.-7) registered a Dehati Nalishi vide Ex.P/9 in the case. During the investigation, seizures were made vide Ex.P/4 from the crime scene. A site map was prepared vide Ex.P/5. Clothes of the injured were seized vide Ex.P/6. Revenue Officer prepared a map vide Ex.P/7. A video CD was seized from the complainant. The documents of the complainant’s treatment were taken on record and after getting the injured treated medically, the report

¶19

3

¶20

vide Ex.P/12 was obtained. First Information report was registered vide Ex.P/16. After taking the accused into custody and interrogating him, he gave a memorandum statement and as per his memorandum statement, an iron rod (press handle) was seized vide Ex.P/2. The clothes of the accused were seized vide Ex.P/17. After seizure, the seized articles were sent for FSL test. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and cognizance was taken and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court on transfer for trial. The learned trial Court framed the charge under Section 307 of IPC against the appellant, to which appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

¶21

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence.

¶22

Learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶23

4

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not challenging the conviction part of the impugned judgment, however, he is confining his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He further submits that the incident took place in the year 2014, this appeal is pending since 2015, at the time of incident the appellant was aged about 43 years and as of now he is aged about 53 years; appellant has already remained in jail for more than 141 days. Therefore, considering the above facts, his undergone period may be considered to be sufficient sentence for the alleged offence.

¶25

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and, therefore, is not liable to be interfered with.

¶26

Learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶27

It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge under Section 307 of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the appellant under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him as prescribed in para 1 of this judgment.

¶28

Although the learned counsel for the appellant is not challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, yet this Court considered the evidence of all prosecution witnesses particularly Akhilesh Kumar Sahu (P.W.-1), Naresh

¶29

5

¶30

Kumar Gupta (P.W.-2), complainant- Bhanwarlal Agrawal (P.W.4) and Pinky Dubey (P.W.-5) and found that on the date of incident, appellant assaulted the complainant Bhanwarlal Agrawal with iron rod (press handle).

¶31

Dr. Kamlesh Agrawal (P.W.-6) examined the complainantBhanwarlal Agrawal (P.W.-4) and found a 4-inch lacerated wound in the parietal region, extending to the bone. Additionally, according to the CT scan report, internal examination revealed a blood clot in the fronto -temporal region, swelling in the brain, and a fracture in the right temporal region. He gave his report vide Ex.P/12 in this regard. The reports submitted by Dr. Kamlesh Agrawal (P.W.-6) do not state that the injuries sustained by the injured were sufficient to cause his death.

¶32

Close scrutiny of statements of all witnesses including the medical evidence makes it prove that the appellant had assaulted the complainant Bhanwarlal Agrawal (P.W.-4) with iron rod (press handle) and due to said assault, complainant sustained injuries in his head. However, as per medical report, the injuries sustained by the injured were not sufficient to cause his death. The learned trial Court also minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC is found to be in accordance with law.

¶33

6

¶34

So far as the sentence part of the appellant is concerned, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2014 and nearly 11 years have rolled by since then, appellant is now aged about more than 50 years and he remained in jail for more than 141 days; the appellant is on bail since long and did not misuse the liberty so granted, 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 sentence awarded under Section 324 of IPC to the appellant by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶35

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶36

14. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023.

¶37

15. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

¶40

Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signedby RUCHI YADAV

Sewak Ram Khunte v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sewak Ram Khunte 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

Brijesh Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt.Rukmani Pathak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Jangam @ Vicky Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sant Ram and Other Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Heera Prasad Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakheshwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh