Dismissed¶69

Ganga Ram Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC25 Aug 2025CRA/817/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Attempt to murder - Section 307 IPC - tangia attack on victim's head at night - injured eyewitness (PW-2) corroborated by three eyewitnesses - medical evidence of skull fracture reaching the brain - recovery of bloodstained axe on accused's information - FSL confirmation of victim's human blood - Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur) upholds conviction and sentence of RI 5 years and fine of Rs. 500 - appeal dismissed - bail bonds cancelled, accused directed to surrender - CRA No. 817 of 2004.

What did the court decide?

On the cumulative evidence of the eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-3, PW-5), the injured victim (PW-2) and the medical witnesses, it stands established that the accused deliberately assaulted the victim, injured him, voluntarily caused hurt and attempted to kill him. ¶65

Ganga Ram Satnami Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

¶34

Court's answer

¶65

Ratio / Principle

The medical evidence established that the victim's head injury reached inside the brain and was therefore serious in nature, supporting the conviction under Section 307 IPC.

¶62

Key takeaways

The axe seized on the basis of the accused's information, read with the FSL report showing human blood of the victim, confirms that the said weapon was used in the crime even if it is not completely linked to the crime.ratio¶64
The prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt; the trial Court's conviction and sentence were upheld and the appeal was dismissed.ratio¶69

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 21.09.2004 of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 199/2004 convicting the appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500/-. Prosecution case: on the night of 21/02/2004 at about 01:30, the appellant dragged the injured Anandram out of his house and struck him repeatedly on the head with a tangia; the victim remained unconscious for 17-18 days. The testimony of the eyewitnesses PW-1 (father), PW-3 (sister-in-law) and PW-5 (nephew) was corroborated by the injured victim PW-2 and by the medical evidence of Dr. A.N. Kanwar and Dr. A.B. Bhattacharya, which disclosed head wounds extending up to bone, a compound dispersal fracture and a bruise in the brain. An axe was recovered on the accused's information, and the FSL report (Ex.P15) confirmed the presence of the victim's human blood on it. Holding that the injury was serious in nature and that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal, cancelled the appellant's bail bonds and directed him to surrender forthwith to serve the remaining sentence.

¶1

¶2

CRA No. 817 of 2004

¶3

2025:CGHC:43294

¶4

SOURABH BHILWAR

¶5

Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.09.02 10:59:26 +0530

¶6

NAFR

¶7

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶8

CRA No. 817 of 2004

¶9

Ganga Ram Satnami S/o Dayaram Satnami, Aged About 25 Years, resident of village Pondi, Police out post Hardi Bazar, P.S. Kusmunda, Distt. Korba (C.G.)

¶10

... Appellant

¶11

versus

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh Through : S.H.O. Police Station Kusmunda, Distt. Korba (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Appellant	: Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

¶17

Judgment on Board

¶18

26/08/2025

¶19

This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 199/2004 by the learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, C.G., whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶20

¶21

	*CRA No. 817 of 2004*
Conviction	Sentence
U/s 307 of the IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years
	and fine of Rs. 500/-, with default
	stipulation.

¶22

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21/02/2004 at about 01:30 in the night, the accused Gangaram went to Shivram's house and knocked at the door. Shivram asked his son Anandram (injured) to open the door. When Anandram opened the door, the accused dragged Anandram in the street and hit him on the head repeatedly with a tangia, due to which, Anandram fainted and fell down on the spot. The accused was also threatening to kill Anandram, then Shivram and Nandlal ran to save him and to catch the accused but he ran away. Shivram immediately went to the police station Hardi Bazaar and lodged the FIR. The victim was immediately sent to the doctor for examination, two injuries were found on the head in the parietal region and in the middle part. As his condition was very critical, he was immediately taken to the hospital. Wherefrom, he was sent to Apollo Hospital. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, the police station Hardi Bazar registered a case against the accused and initiated investigation in the case.

¶23

During the investigation, Spot Map (Ex. P/2) was got prepared. The accused was apprehended and statements of the witnesses including the victim was recorded by the police as well as before the Judicial Magistrate. Upon completion thereof, charge-sheet was submitted accordingly. After framing the charges against the accused, the charges

¶24

¶25

CRA No. 817 of 2004

¶26

were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial.

¶27

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in its support. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter.

¶28

The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 21/09/2004 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the statement of the victim is filled with contradictions and omissions, thus not worthy of being given credence. He further submits that conviction cannot be based on guesswork. He submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the conviction against the appellant is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and without there being any cogent evidence, the conviction of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the State/ respondent, per contra, would oppose the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and further submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court is just and proper and warrants no interference of this Court.

¶31

¶32

CRA No. 817 of 2004

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well.

¶34

The sole question for consideration would arise before this Court that whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of the IPC or not.

¶35

As far as the Section 307 of the IPC is concerned, which deals with the offense of attempt to murder. It criminalizes any act done with the intention or knowledge that it would cause death, and if that act were to result in death, the person would be guilty of murder. Punishments include imprisonment for up to ten years and a fine, but if hurt is caused, the offender can face imprisonment for life. The crucial element is the intent to cause death or the knowledge that the act could cause death. Regarding this, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses to prove its case, relevant testimonies have been observed below.

¶36

PW-1 father of the victim, who was an eyewitness to the incident stated in his examination that he knows the accused Ganga Ram. On 20/02/2004, Ganga Ram who is his relative came to his house at night. He woke us up and when he asked him from outside the door, he told him his name. When they woke up, Anand Ram opened the door. He stated that he also got up with him. When his son Anand Ram opened the door, Ganga Ram caught Anand Ram's arm and hit him with an axe, as a result of which, Anand Ram fell down right there. At that time this

¶37

¶38

CRA No. 817 of 2004

¶39

witness, Raju, Nandlal, Rajesh were inside the house. Ganga Ram hit the door with a tangiya and made a mark of the tangiya on the door but the door did not break. We shouted from inside. Then the accused ran away from there. We were stood near Anand Ram. He was unconscious. He was hit on the back of his head, above the right ear, above the teeth and near the lips due to which, blood was also oozing out. All the members of our family had come there. He further stated that he had lodged a report of the above incident in the police station Kusmunda.

¶40

In his cross-examination, he categorically stated that the incident was occurred at 01:30 AM in the night. The incident of assault took place on the road adjacent to the platform outside the door of his house. He stated that he was a few feet away when the assault took place. When his son was being assaulted by the accused, he defended him. The accused had beaten him and made him fall and ran to kill us, therefore, we could not catch him. He further negated the fact that he was sleeping when his son was beaten up. He himself said that there was light which was on at the time of incident. It is wrong to say that I reached the spot after my son fell down. The police interrogated me on the morning of the second day of the incident. On one side of my house is a Bihari and on the other side is a school. No one's house is in the north-south direction. He further negated the fact that he has not seen the incident and he was not in the village that day.

¶41

PW/3 is the sister-in-law of the victim who was an eyewitness to the incident narrated the whole incident as stated by PW/1 in her

¶42

¶43

CRA No. 817 of 2004

¶44

examination. She stated that after beating up Anand Ram, the accused ran towards them, then we went inside the room and locked the door. The accused hit the door with a tangi. Thereafter, he ran away saying that he has killed Anand Ram and will kill his entire family. When we came out, we saw that Anand Ram was lying down. He had sustained a head injury. The accused Ganga Ram had beaten Anand Ram with a tangiya.

¶45

In her cross-examination, she categorically admitted the fact that when they heard of cries of Anand Ram for help from outside, she and her husband ran out from the house. She stated that she reached the spot within one or two minutes after the shouts were heard. In front of her, the accused attacked the victim with a stick. She further stated that as soon as a person wakes up from sleep and there is light, he can see the scene clearly. Further she negated the fact that she was not at home on the date of incident and she has not seen the incident.

¶46

PW/5 is the nephew of the victim, who has also seen the incident and being an eyewitness to the incident also corroborated the whole narrative as stated by the above witnesses. In his cross-examination, he categorically stated that Anand Ram was not lying there before they reached there rather he was watching the accused while beating Anand Ram.

¶47

PW/2- Anand Ram, the injured himself stated in his statement that he knows the accused present. He stated that on the date of incident, he was sleeping at night in his house alongwith other family members. At

¶48

¶49

CRA No. 817 of 2004

¶50

midnight, Gangaram shouted at the door, his father woke him up and said, "go to the door, Gangaram is outside." he opened the door and asked what was the matter, why have you come at night and opened the door. Then the accused caught hold his hand and took him out the door into the field. Gangaram hit him on the back of the head with his tangia. He further stated that he could see only this thereafter he fell unconscious. He stated that he remained unconscious for 17-18 days after which he regained consciousness and when regained consciousness, he was in the hospital. He had no previous dispute with the accused. He cannot tell why the accused had assaulted him.

¶51

In his cross-examination, he categorically stated that when he was beaten, his father had come out of the house. When he opened the door, at that time, his father was in the house and had followed him. He stated that he was not conscious after being beaten. The police personnel asked him after three months who had assaulted him to which he had given a similar statement to the police to the statement which he gave before the Court. He further stated that when the police took the statement, his condition was not good hence he did not give the statement to the police soon after the incident. He had only told the police that Gangaram had assaulted him. He also stated in his statement that there was no darkness at the incident site, there was light. At the spot of incident, there is a bulb installed for lighting. He negated the fact that he could not see the person who assaulted him. At the time of the assault, the accused was standing next to him.

¶52

¶53

CRA No. 817 of 2004

¶54

The injuries sustained by the victim in the incident were confirmed by the statements of PW/8 Dr. A.N. Kanwar and PW/12 Dr. A.B. Bhattacharya and from their reports Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-14. Medical witness PW-6 stated in his statement that when the victim Anand Ram was brought to him, he was unconscious and he had sustained the injuries quoted below :-

¶55

1. There was a wound in the head measuring 6 x 1 upto bone depth.

¶56

2. A swollen bruise measuring 5×5 cm over the middle part of the head.

¶57

3. A lacerated wound measuring 6×1/2 cm was there on the back of the head.

¶58

PW-12, Dr. A.B. Bhattacharya, who was in-charge of the emergency ward of Apollo Hospital, Anand was admitted there on 21^st February, 2004 after he was referred from Korba. He also found a bruise on the left side of his head in the tempo parietal region, as well as an injury on the back of the neck and another on the upper lip. There were no stitches on the neck injury and he further stated in his statement that on doing a CT scan of the brain, there was a compound dispersal fracture below the head injury, due to which there was a bruise in the brain.

¶59

Perusal of the statements of the above witnesses and medical witnesses would show that the parts of body where the victim and other witnesses have mentioned injuries were also confirmed by the expert medical witnesses. Dr. Kanwar has stated that the injury was fatal about which, he has clarified in his cross-examination that the patient was

¶60

¶61

CRA No. 817 of 2004

¶62

unconscious, blood was oozing out from the head, so he had described it as serious. PW-12 has also stated the fact that the injury reached inside the brain, hence, it is clear that the injury was of serious in nature.

¶63

Further, the evidence has also been collected in the case to confirm the recovery of the weapon used in the incident and the injuries caused by it. In the present case, two witnesses, PW-4 Fekudas and PW-9 Khamhan Das have been examined. PW-9 had clearly stated in that on the information given by the accused that he had hidden the axe in the garden of Pawan's house and he would get it recovered. On the basis of which, the seizure of the axe from the courtyard of Pawan's house was done as per the seizure memo Ex.P/8.

¶64

The statements of these witnesses proves that the axe and its handle were seized on the information of the accused. In this case, the axe was sent for FSL examination to link it to the crime and in the FSL report Ex.P15, it has been confirmed that blood was found in the axe, although that blood was human blood, it was the blood of the victim Anand. The seized material was recovered from the accused on the basis of his information, so even if that weapon is not completely linked to the crime, it is confirmed that the said weapon was used in the crime. As has also been stated by Dr. A.N. Kawar PW-6, to whom that axe was sent for examination and he has given his report Ex.P-11 whereby it has been proved that the said weapon may cause injury to the victim.

¶65

Thus, from the above evidence, it is found that the accused deliberately assaulted the victim; injured him; voluntarily caused hurt; and attempted to kill him. Hence, the finding of the learned trial Court undoubtedly

¶66

¶67

CRA No. 817 of 2004

¶68

found justified and in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has rightly observed in its judgment and justifiably sentenced the accused under Sections 307 of the IPC.

¶69

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon cumulative analysis of the evidence available on record, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court is hereby upheld. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶70

The accused is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining period of sentence. As the permanent nonbailable warrant has already been issued against him vide order dated 04/08/2025 passed by this Court, the same be executed at the earliest and the accused be taken into custody. He is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

¶71

Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

$. Bhilwar

Ganga Ram Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Ram Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Purushottam Pando @ Parshottam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Savita Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Alka Thakre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manohar Lal Agarwal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Anand Shekhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Singh Parihar Vs State of Chhattisgarh