Hiraman Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.), in S.T. No.30/2010 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 307 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo R.I. for one month.

¶19

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.04.2010 at around 1.20 PM, when complainant Chudamani Sinha (PW1) was sitting out side of his hotel doing gudakhu, at the relevant time, accused/appellant came there holding meat cleaver (Katta) and assaulted complainant Chudamani Sinha over his head from behind, due to which he sustained grievous injuries. The accused/appellant was about to inflict second blow, but complainant Chudamani stopped the attacked with his hand, due to which he sustained injuries on the palm of his right hand and after this incident, the accused/appellant ran away from the spot. According to the prosecution, the said incident was witnessed by Panchram @ Nepal Sinha (PW-5), Ramlal Yadav (PW-2) and Basant Patel. The accused/appellant was having previous enmity with complaint. The report of the incident was lodged on the same day by Chudamani (PW-1), on the basis of which, an FIR (Ex.P-1) for the offence under Section 307 of IPC was registered against the accused/appellant, and thereafter injured/complainant was sent for medical examination to

¶20

3

¶21

Primary Health Center, Patela, Tumgaon vide Ex.12, where he was medically examined by Dr. Lekhram Chandrakar (PW-6) who gave his report under Ex.P-8 noticing (i) incised wound on occipital position of scalp in the size of 11 x 1 x 1 cm and (ii) incised wound on dorsum of right hand in the size of 3 x 1 x 1 cm. The doctor has opined that the injuries were caused by hard and sharp object and advice for x-ray to ascertain the nature of injuries. Police prepared spot map vide Ex.P-5. Panchanama was prepared vide Ex.P-6. Bloodstained clothes (vest and towel) of complainant were seized vide Ex.P/2. Weapon of offence ‘meat cleaver’ (Katta) used in commission of crime was seized vide Ex.P3. X-ray of complainant was done vide Ex.P-9. Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex.P-10. The weapon of offence i.e. meat cleaver was subjected to query from doctor (PW-6) vide Ex.P-14, and according to the query report Ex.P-10, injuries sustained by the complainant could have been caused by the said weapon. Bloodstained clothes of complainant and weapon of offence were sent to F.S.L., Raipur for its chemical examination, however, there is no FSL report on record.

¶22

After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. After filing of charge-sheet, the trial Court framed charges against the appellant under

¶23

4

¶24

Section 307 of IPC.

¶25

So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. One defence witness namely Shiv Kumar (DW-1) was also examined in the case.

¶26

The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record has convicted and sentenced the present accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court is contrary to facts and evidence available on records, hence, it is liable to be set aside. The FIR was lodged on 30.04.2010 at 14.20 PM and the complainant was taken to Govt. Hospital, Mahasamund for treatment on the same day at 14.35 PM but the distance of police station and Mahasamund is near about 30 kilometer, thus, looking to the distance, it is not possible to perform 30 kms distance in just 15 minutes. Learned counsel also submits that according to the prosecution, there were two other persons present at the spot but they did not made any effort to save the

¶28

5

¶29

complainant from the attack, which is highly doubtful. The learned Trial Court did not consider that the entire prosecution case is fabricated and based on false evidence. The appellant has been falsely implicated by the complainant due to previous enmity. The learned Trial Court relied upon the evidence of interested witnesses. There are contradictions and omission in the statements of prosecution witnesses and the prosecution story is vulnerable and not trustworthy. The learned Trial court committed illegality in awarding sentence to the appellant as the quantum of sentence is too high looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. The weapon meat cleaver (Gandasha) was seized from the house of Devdas Kotwar (PW-3), which also creates doubt in the prosecution case. Learned counsel also submits that Dr. Lekharam Chandrakar (PW-6) has stated that he examined the complainant at 14.35 PM and at the time of examination, the complainant was fully conscious and his blood pressure, heart beat and other parameters were normal and the nature of injury was simple but the learned Trial Court without considering the evidence in its true perspective held the appellant guilty for offence of 307 IPC, which is not sustainable. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt has

¶30

6

¶31

to go to the appellant. Thus, the appeal may be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment.

¶32

Alternative submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that if this Court finds and proves the guilt of the appellant, then the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him as the appellant has already remained in jail for more than 08 months, the incident took place in the year 2010 and thereby 15 years have rolled on by since then, the appeal is pending since 2010 and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him back to jail, therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶33

On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by learned counsel for the State that conviction of the accused/appellant is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶35

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

¶36

7

¶37

Injured/victim Chudamani Sinha (PW-1) has stated that on the date of incident, he was sitting outside of his hotel doing Gudakhu. At the relevant time, the accused/appellant came from behind and assaulted him over his head by meat cleaver (Katta), due to which he sustained injury over his head. He has also stated that the accused/appellant was about to give repeated blow again but he stopped the attack with his hand which resulted in injury to his hand. He has also stated when he screamed and turned back, the accused/appellant started running and he chased the accused/appellant till Bhanu’s Salon shop. He has also stated that Panchram alias Nepal Sinha and Ramlal Yadav were present at the time of incident and they have seen the incident. He has also stated that the accused/appellant threw the weapon ‘meat cleaver’ by which he assaulted him near Shishu Temple while fleeing. There were 21-22 stitches in his head due to injury. He has further stated that he reported the incident in police station Patewa, and on the basis of his report, an FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against the accused/appellant and admitted his signature on ‘A to A’ part thereon. The police had also seized his vest and towel (gamcha) vide seizure memo Ex.P-2 and he admitted his signature on ‘A to A’ part thereon. He has also stated that following the incident, he was hospitalized for a week for

¶38

8

¶39

treatment of his injuries. In cross-examination, this witness remained firmed to what has been stated in his examinationin-chief and nothing elicit has come in his evidence to discredit his testimony especially to the fact that the accused/appellant has not assaulted him by meat cleaver (Katta).

¶40

The evidence of this witness (PW-1) is well corroborated by the evidence of eye-witnesses Ramlal (PW-2) and Panchram @ Nepal (PW-5), who have categorically stated that at the time of incident they were present in the hotel of injured/complainant (PW-1), the accused/appellant came there and assaulted complainant with meat cleaver (katta) on his head and when the accused/appellant was about to give repeated blow, it was stopped by the complainant by his hand, after the incident the accused/appellant started running, who was chased by them till barber shop. The defence has cross-examined these witnesses at length but has not been able to elicit anything in their crossexamination to discredit their testimonies especially to the fact that the accused/appellant did not come to the hotel of complainant, not assaulted him with meat cleaver (katta) over his head and hand & after the attack, he did not flee from the spot.

¶41

Devdas (PW-3) is the village Kotwar who has admitted his

¶42

9

¶43

signature on seizure memo (Ex.P-3) and panchanama (Ex.P-6).

¶44

The evidence of injured/complainant Chudamani (PW-1), eye-witnesses Ramlal (PW-2) and Panchram @ Nepal (PW5) is duly corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Lekhram Chandrakar (PW-6) who medically examined the injured on 30.04.2010 vide Ex.P-8 and found (i) incised wound on occipital position of scalp in the size of 11 x 1 x 1 cm and (ii) incised wound on dorsum of right hand in the size of 3 x 1 x 1 cm. The doctor has opined that the injuries were caused by hard and sharp object and advice for x-ray to ascertain the nature of injuries. According to x-ray report (Ex.P-9), there was fracture of occipital bone of complainant and in query report (Ex.P10), the doctor has opined that at the time of admission & examination, injured/complainant Chudamani was conscious and his all parameters were normal. His condition was normal. In para 5 of crossexamination, the Doctor has admitted this suggestion of defence that injured Chudamani’s injuries were not of a nature that would have caused his immediate death.

¶45

From the aforesaid testimonies of injured/complainant (PW1) and eye-witnesses (PW-2 and PW-5), it can safely be inferred that it is the accused/appellant who assaulted injured/complainant Chudamani (PW-1) by meat cleaver

¶46

10

¶47

(Katta) and according to Dr. Lekhram Chandrakar (PW-6), he found injuries on head and hand of injured/complainant and also found fracture in occipital bone, however, the doctor has categorically admitted that the nature of injuries suffered by injured/complainant were normal and not fatal to life and x-ray report (Ex.P-9) reveals that injured/complainant suffered grievous injuries, which makes him liable to be convicted under Section 326 IPC and not under Section 307 of IPC.

¶48

Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of case, the nature and number of injuries coupled with the medical evidence and further considering the fact that there is nothing in the medical report of doctor that injuries sustained by the injured were fatal to life, it would not be safe to hold that the appellant caused injury to injured PW-1 in an attempt to commit his murder. However, the nature and number of injuries caused and the weapon used for causing such injury, it can safely be inferred that the accused/appellant had caused hurt to the injured with dangerous weapon meat cleaver (katta) making him liable to be convicted under Section 326 IPC.

¶49

As regards the sentence, considering the fact that the appellant has already remained in jail for a period of about 08 months and the incident had taken place in the year

¶50

11

¶51

2010 i.e. about 15 years have elapsed since then, the appellant at the time of incident was aged around 29 years and by now he is aged about 45 years, this Court is of the considered opinion that it will be in the interest of justice to sentence him to the period already undergone by him.

¶52

17. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC is altered to Section 326 IPC and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶53

18. The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of BNSS.

¶54

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

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶57

pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2025.11.20 16:39:52 +0530

Hiraman Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiraman Sahu 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

Sunita Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sachin Kumar Mishra @ Kapil Mishra Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Ajit Singh Chhabra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar @ Bhogaoo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Kumar Gupta Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sati Bai Borkar Vs State Ofchhattisgarh