Allowed¶33

Fagun Ram @ Burhwa v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jan 2025CRA/385/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fagun Ram @ Burhwa v. State of Chhattisgarh; CRA No. 385 of 2005; Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; decided 22/01/2025; Justice Rajani Dubey; acquittal; Section 307 IPC conviction set aside; hostile/infirm injured witness PW-7 Ghasiya Ram admitting fall on doorway (choukhat) in drunken condition; FIR witness PW-5 Alam Sai did not see incident; defence witness DW-1 Patiya Bai; medical evidence of head swelling and fronto-temporal fracture (PW-9 Dr. S.K. Gupta; PW-12 Dr. M.K. Jain); Session Trial No.202/2004; 3rd Additional Session Judge, Surajpur, District Sarguja; incident dated 06.03.2004; bail bonds operative six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of the charges under Section 307 of IPC; bail bonds to remain operative for 6 weeks.

Fagun Ram @ Burhwa Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of the charges under Section 307 of IPC; bail bonds to remain operative for 6 weeks.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC for the assault on Ghasiya Ram, given the omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the injured witness's admission in cross-examination that he fell against the doorway in darkness, and the defence witness's version.

¶19

Court's answer

On close scrutiny of the statement of the injured himself, DW-1 and other witnesses, the prosecution has failed to prove that on the date of incident the accused assaulted Ghasiya Ram.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The complainant (PW-7 Ghasiya Ram) did not remain firm in his statement: while stating in examination-in-chief that he was assaulted by the accused, he admitted in cross-examination the defence suggestion that he fell down due to darkness and received injury from the doorway (choukhat).

¶29

Key takeaways

The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable because it did not appreciate the cross-examination of the injured and the statement of the defence witnesses.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (CRA No. 385 of 2005), High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 22/01/2025 by Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, against conviction under Section 307 IPC and sentence of 3 years RI imposed by the 3rd Additional Session Judge, Surajpur (District Sarguja) in Session Trial No.202/2004 dated 11.04.2005. The injured Ghasiya Ram (PW-7) stated in examination-in-chief that the accused assaulted him with a lathi causing head injuries (swelling in right occipital region per Dr. S.K. Gupta, PW-9; fracture in right fronto-temporal region per x-ray report of Dr. M.K. Jain, PW-12), but admitted in cross-examination that, being drunk, he fell against the doorway (choukhat) in darkness; PW-5 Alam Sai, who lodged the FIR, admitted he had not seen the incident and only heard noise; DW-1 Patiya Bai, wife of the appellant, stated the injured was trying to outrage her modesty and fell while running. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused assaulted the injured and that the Trial Court ignored the cross-examination and defence evidence, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant under Section 307 IPC; his bail bonds were directed to remain operative for six weeks.

2025:CGHC:3985

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 385 of 2005

¶6

Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA

¶7

1 - Fagun Ram @ Burhwa, S/o Amar Singh Gond, aged about 35 years, Caste Gond, R/o Village Parsa, PS Prem Nagar, District Sarguja (C.G.)

¶8

Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through PS Premnagar, District Sarguja (C.G.)

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Anjiv Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL

¶13

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

22/01/2025

¶16

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2005 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Session Judge, Surajpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Session Trial No.202/2004, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with default stipulations.

¶17

¶18

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.03.2004, when the injured Ghasiya Ram had gone to the house of the accused at about 8 pm, a quarrel took place concerning grazing of banana by Ghasiya Ram’s cattle from the field of the accused, as a result of which the accused assaulted Ghasiya Ram by wood stick, upon which he sustained severe injuries, thereafter the matter was reported to the concerned police Station. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. PW-5 Alam Sai, who lodged the report, has not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he has not seen the occurrence. The injured PW-7 Ghasiya Ram himself stated that he was in drunken condition and when the accused told him to go and when he was going, he fell down on doorway due to darkness and sustained injury. The assaulted weapon wood stick (lathi) has also not been recovered from the accused. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

¶20

Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely

¶21

¶22

appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶24

It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 307 of IPC against the accused and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

¶25

The victim Ghasiya Ram (PW-7) stated in his examination-inchief that on the date of incident, he was sitting in front of house of the appellant, then the accused assaulted him with club (lathi) and he sustained injuries in his head. Dr. S. K. Gupta (PW-9) examined Ghasiya Ram on 07.03.2004 and found swelling in his head in right side occipital region and he referred him for District Hospital, Ambikapur. He also found one abrasion in right hand and gave his report (Ex-P/5). Dr. M. K. Jain (PW-12) stated that as per x-ray report of Ghasiya Ram dated 09.03.2004, he found fracture in right fronto temporal region and gave his report (ExP/16.

¶26

Thus, looking to the reports of both the doctors, it is proved that on the date of incident, the injured Ghasiya Ram sustained

¶27

¶28

grievous injuries on his head, but Ghasiya Ram (PW-7) himself stated in his cross-examination that it is true that he was sleeping in appellant’s house in drunken condition and when the accused told him to go and when he was about to go, he fell down due to darkness and sustained injury from doorway (choukhat). PW-2 Thakur Ram stated that the accused assaulted the injured Ghasiya Ram with club. Shobhit Ram (PW-3), Jagful (PW-4) have only stated about injuries of Ghasiya Ram. Alam Sai (PW-5) lodged FIR (Ex-P/3) and he stated that he heard noise of club. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he has not seen the incident and only heard the noise. Asaram (PW-6) has also not stated about the incident.

¶29

It is clear from the statement of PW-7 Ghasiya Ram that he admitted this suggestion of defence that he sustained injuries from doorway (choukhat) and Dr. S. K. Gupta (PW-9) also admitted this suggestion of defence in para 6 that injury may come if somebody dashes against thick wood. The prosecution did not re-examine Ghasiya Ram on this point that in the examination-in-chief, he sustained injuries due to assault by the accused, but in cross-examination, he stated that due to darkness, he fell down and sustained injuries so it is clear that the complainant himself has not remained firm in his statement and he admitted the suggestion of defence that he fell down due to darkness and received injury from doorway (choukhat). The defence witness DW-1 Patiya Bai, wife of appellant stated that on

¶30

¶31

the date of incident, the injured was trying to outrage her modesty and when her husband came, then the injured Ghasiya Ram was trying to run, upon which he fell down and received injury from doorway. she denied this suggestion that her husband assaulted Ghasiya Ram.

¶32

On close scrutiny of statement of injured himself and DW-1 and other witnesses, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove this fact that the on the date of incident, the accused assaulted Ghasiya Ram, but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the cross-examination of the injured and the statement of defence witnesses so the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable.

¶33

Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 307 of IPC.

¶34

The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of 6 weeks from today.

¶35

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

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

Rajani Dubey Judge

¶38

Nirala

Fagun Ram @ Burhwa v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fagun Ram @ Burhwa 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

Bhuvan Lal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Mukhiya Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Gupta and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Johe Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra Tamrakar Vs Sanjeet Kumar Vishwakarma