Mohan Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For appellants : Mr. G.V.K. Rao, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board

¶13

25.11.2025

¶14

Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.12 11:24:33 +0530

¶15

1 . With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard 昀椀nally at motion stage.

¶16

2 . This criminal appeal has been 昀椀led under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 30/2022, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

¶17

2

¶18

Convicted under Sections	Sentenced to
326-A (昀椀ve counts)of the Indian Penal Code, 1860	R.I. for 10-10 years with 昀椀ne of INR Rs. 1000-1000/- (昀椀ve counts) and in default of payment of 昀椀ne, additional R.I. for 1-1 year (to both the appellants)
324 of IPC	R.I. for 1 year with 昀椀ne of Rs. 300 and in default of payment of 昀椀ne, additional R.I. for 1 month( to appellant Mohan Netam)

¶19

3 . Brie昀氀y stated facts of the case leading to the disposal of this appeal is that the the complainant, Purushottam Netam, submitted a written complaint (Exhibit P/6) on 03.06.2022 at Police Station Dugli, Kouhabahra, against the accused persons, stating that on 02.06.2022, he along with his friends had gone to the village to attend the ritual of Madwa Jharana at the houses of Lokesh Sori and Deva Markam. After completing the ritual, he along with Ramprasad Netam, Devaraj Netam, Chandra Bhavan Netam, Pratap Netam, Jagesh Netam, Hemant Netam, Ravi Markam and Laganu Markam had gone to the pond for freshening up. On the other side of the pond, the accused persons, Mohn Netam and Bhikham Markam, were abusing village girls namely, America Markam and Neha Netam, in obscene language. On hearing the abuses, Jagesh Netam, elder brother of accused Mohn Netam, went to him and questioned him regarding the said abuses and slapped him. Due to this, both brothers got engaged in a scu昀툀e, and other persons present there intervened to separate them. During the intervention, accused Mohn Netam bit the left ear of Pratap Netam and pulled it forcefully. Meanwhile, the friend of Mohn, accused Bhikham, ran away saying he would bring something from his house. Upon witnessing the 昀椀ght, girl Neha went back to her house, whereas the other girl, America Markam, proceeded towards her house after the

¶20

3

¶21

昀椀ght ended. The group of friends followed accused Mohn towards his house. At that time, accused Bhikham Markam returned carrying a substance in a glass bottle and threatened that he would burn the faces of all of them. He handed over the bottle to accused Mohn, who then opened the cap and threw the liquid substance on all of them with the intent to cause facial injuries. As a result, the complainant sustained burns near his right ear, on the right side of his back, and on his right hand, while injured Devaraj sustained burns on the left side of his face, on the back of the neck, and on his left arm. Pratap sustained injuries on his left ear due to the bite of accused Mohn, and also su昀昀ered acid splashes on both hands. The said liquid was acid, due to which the clothes worn by them got burnt at the respective places and caused severe burning sensation, prompting all of them to jump into the pond water for protection. Thereafter, accused Mohn Netam and Bhikham Markam 昀氀ed from the spot. On the basis of the written complaint of the complainant, Police Station Dugli registered the First Information Report (Exhibit P/7) for o昀昀ences under Sections 326-A, 324, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and initiated investigation. During investigation, spot maps were prepared by the police and the revenue o昀케cer (Patwari). Medical examination of the complainant and all other injured persons was conducted. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Upon 昀椀nding su昀케cient evidence against the accused persons, they were duly arrested, and information regarding their arrest was conveyed to their family members. After completion of investigation, it was found that the accused persons had committed o昀昀ences punishable under Sections 326-A, 324, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the chargesheet was 昀椀led before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagri,

¶22

4

¶23

District Dhamtari. Thereafter, upon committal, the case was received by the learned Sessions Court, and the present case was placed before this Court for trial on 17.10.2022.

¶24

4 . So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellants in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. No Defence has been examined in support of its case.

¶25

5 . After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record including the evidence of the witnesses, learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Dhamtari (C.G.) has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as described in paragraph No. 2 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

¶26

6 . Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submits that as there was no intention on the part of the accused/appellants to cause injury to the victim, the aforesaid o昀昀ence is not made out. Alternatively, counsel for the accused/appellants submits that if the conviction part of the judgment impugned is not going to be interfered with, keeping in mind the fact that the accused/appellants has already remained behind the bars from 04.06.2022 to 09.02.2024 and from the date of judgment dated 09.02.202, the sentence imposed on them may be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶27

7 . On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that taking into consideration the statements of the injured/victim and other witnesses which gets

¶28

5

¶29

corroboration from the testimony of other independent witnesses, the 昀椀ndings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Dhamtari holding the accused/appellants guilty for the aforesaid o昀昀ences being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record is fully justi昀椀ed and do not call for any interference in this appeal.

¶30

8 . Heard counsel for the parties at length and went through the evidence on record with utmost circumspection.

¶31

9 . The prosecution witnesses/injured persons, namely Chandrabhavan Netam (PW-1), injured Devaraj Netam (PW-2), injured Jagesh Kumar Netam (PW-3), and injured Ravi Kumar (PW-4), deposed regarding the incident that the occurrence took place in the night of June 2022 at about 11:00 PM. They stated that they, along with their village friends— Purushottam Netam, Pratap Netam, Ramprasad Netam, and Hemant Netam—had gone to the houses of Lokesh Sori and Deva Markam for the ritual of Madwa Hatana . While returning to their respective homes, they stopped near the pond for answering the call of nature. At that place, they heard noises of abusive language. Upon reaching the spot, they saw that the accused persons, Bhikham Markam and Mohn Netam, were hurling abusive and obscene language at village girls, namely, America Markam and Neha Netam. At that point, Jagesh Netam, the elder brother of accused Mohn Netam, questioned him as to why he was using abusive words and slapped accused Mohn. Due to this, both brothers started 昀椀ghting with each other. When they tried to separate them, accused Mohn Netam bit the ear of their friend, injured Pratap Netam, due to which bleeding started. The witnesses further deposed that while they were returning towards their homes, the girls and accused Mohn were walking ahead, and they were coming behind them.

¶32

6

¶33

Meanwhile, accused Bhikham left the spot saying that he would bring something from his house. After the quarrel subsided, they were on their way home when accused Bhikham came near the pond carrying a bottle containing some substance. He handed over the bottle to accused Mohn, who sprinkled the liquid contained in the said bottle over them. The said liquid fell on the neck, hand, and clothes of injured Chandrabhavan, due to which his skin got burnt. The said substance also caused burn injuries to the hands of Chandrabhavan, to the face of Devaraj, to the faces of Ravi and Chandrabhan, to the backside of Purushottam’s body, and on the backs of the other friends present there. Thereafter, all of them jumped into the pond to protect themselves from the burning sensation, and the accused persons, Mohn and Bhikham, 昀氀ed to their houses. After coming out of the pond, they went to their homes. The witnesses stated that on the next day, they lodged a report at Police Station Dugli against the accused persons and their medical examinations were conducted. Injured Chandrabhavan Netam handed over the vest worn at the time of the incident to the police, which was seized vide Exhibit P/1; injured Devaraj Netam handed over the vest worn by him, which was seized vide Exhibit P/2; and injured Ravi Kumar handed over the T-shirt worn by him, which was seized vide Exhibit P/4. Their statements were recorded by the police during investigation.

¶34

10. From the above statements of prosecution witnesses/injured persons —Chandrabhavan Netam (PW-1), Devaraj Netam (PW-2), Jagesh Kumar Netam (PW-3), and Ravi Kumar (PW-4)—have been supported by injured witness Laganu Markam (PW-5), injured Pratap Netam (PW6), and the complainant/injured Purushottam Netam (PW-8) in their respective depositions before the Court. They con昀椀rmed that accused

¶35

7

¶36

Bhikham brought the bottle and handed it to accused Mohn; accused Mohn opened the cap and sprinkled the substance over them; due to which they su昀昀ered burning sensation and injuries; thereafter, the accused 昀氀ed from the spot; and they jumped into the pond to save themselves from burning.

¶37

11. Witness Pratap Netam (PW-6) stated that after coming out of the pond, he was taken to Nagri Hospital for treatment, where the doctors put four stitches on his ear, and he handed over the clothes worn by him at the time of incident, which were seized vide Exhibit P/5.

¶38

12. Witness Purushottam Netam (PW-8) also deposed that with respect to the incident of throwing in昀氀ammable substance by the accused persons, they had submitted a written complaint, Exhibit P/6, on the basis of which the First Information Report, Exhibit P/7, was registered. He further stated that his medical examination was conducted, a site map (Exhibit P/8) was prepared by the police, and he handed over the T-shirt worn at the time of incident, which was seized vide Exhibit P/9. His statement was also recorded by the police.

¶39

13. The prosecution has 昀椀rst relied upon the medical evidence to establish the nature and extent of injuries sustained by the victims. In this regard, Medical O昀케cer Dr. Satish Uike (PW-9), who was posted at PHC, Dugli, has deposed that on 03.06.2022, during his o昀케cial duty, he medically examined the injured persons namely Devaraj Netam, Chandrabhan Netam, Ravi Kumar Markam, Purushottam Netam, and Pratap Netam, who were brought to the health centre by Constable No. 241 Manish Sahu of Police Station, Dugli stated in his evidence as under:-

¶40

8

¶41

Examination of Devaraj Netam

¶42

Dr. Uike stated that on examination of injured Devaraj Netam , aged

¶43

21 years, he found multiple chemical burn injuries on the body,

¶44

described as follows:

¶45

A black-coloured burn mark on the lower part of the left hand measuring about 1% .

¶46

Six black-coloured burn marks of di昀昀erent sizes on the upper part of the left hand measuring 0.75% .

¶47

A black burn mark on the back of the right hand measuring 9 x 5 inches , constituting 1% burn.

¶48

A black burn mark on the lower part of the neck measuring 9 x 6.5 inches , constituting 0.5% burn.

¶49

Several black burn marks around the left eye of di昀昀erent sizes measuring 0.5% burn.

¶50

According to the witness, the duration of all the burn injuries was about 18 to 20 hours . He opined that the injuries found on the body of Devaraj Netam were chemical burn injuries of serious nature . His report is marked as Ex. P-10 .

¶51

Examination of Chandrabhan Netam

¶52

The witness further stated that on the same day, he examined injured

¶53

Chandrabhan Netam , aged 26 years, and found the following

¶54

chemical burn injuries :

¶55

A black-coloured burn mark measuring 10 x 4 inches on the lower part of the right hand, constituting 1% burn.

¶56

Nine black burn marks of di昀昀erent sizes on the lower part of the right arm, constituting 0.75% burn.

¶57

Four black burn marks on the lower part of the left hand, constituting 1% burn.

¶58

Four burn marks on the lower part of the left arm measuring 0.75% burn.

¶59

A large burn mark measuring 13 x 13 inches extending from the right shoulder to the left shoulder on the back of the neck, constituting 9% burn.

¶60

The duration of all the injuries was about 18 to 20 hours , and he opined that they were serious chemical burn injuries . His report is marked as Ex. P-11 .

¶61

Examination of Ravi Kumar Markam

¶62

The doctor further deposed that on the same day, he examined injured

¶63

Ravi Kumar Markam , aged 17 years, and found the following

¶64

9

¶65

chemical burn injuries :

¶66

A black burn mark measuring 10 x 3 inches on the lower part of the right hand, measuring 1% burn.

¶67

Twelve black burn marks of di昀昀erent sizes on the upper part of the left hand, measuring 0.75% burn.

¶68

A black burn mark measuring 4 x 5 inches on the neck, measuring 0.5% burn.

¶69

Four black burn marks on the left side and thirteen on the right side of the face, of di昀昀erent shapes, measuring 0.2% burn.

¶70

He con昀椀rmed that all the injuries were about 18 to 20 hours old and were chemical burn injuries of serious nature. His report is marked as Ex. P-12.

¶71

Examination of Purushottam Netam

¶72

The witness further stated that on the same day, he examined

¶73

Purushottam Netam , aged 19 years, and found the following chemical burn injuries :

¶74

A black burn mark measuring 9 x 5 inches on the lower part of the right hand, measuring 1% burn.

¶75

A black-coloured burn mark measuring 9 x 9 inches on the back, measuring 4.5% burn.

¶76

A black burn mark measuring 5 x 3 inches below the right ear, and 14 black burn marks of di昀昀erent sizes on the left cheek, measuring 1% burn.

¶77

A brownish-coloured mark measuring 1 x 0.5 inches on the lower part of the neck, which could be caused by a hard and blunt object.

¶78

He opined that all the burn injuries were chemical burn injuries of serious nature , and his medical report is marked as Ex. P-13 .

¶79

Examination of Pratap Netam

¶80

He further stated that on the same day, he examined Pratap Netam , aged 28 years, and found the following injuries:

¶81

Four black burn marks on the back side of the right hand, measuring 1% burn.

¶82

Six black burn marks of di昀昀erent sizes on the back of the right arm, measuring 0.7% burn.

¶83

Six black burn marks on the lower part of the left hand, measuring 1% burn.

¶84

A black burn mark measuring 9 x 3 inches on the lower part of the left hand, measuring 0.5% burn.

¶85

10

¶86

One burn mark on the right side of the face and four on the left side of the face, measuring 1% burn.

¶87

One stitched wound on the outer side of the left ear and 昀椀ve stitched wounds on the back side of the ear.

¶88

He opined that all the injuries sustained by Pratap Netam were chemical burn injuries of serious nature , and his medical examination report is marked as Ex. P-14 .

¶89

14. Dr. Uike has stated that all the injuries sustained by the abovementioned victims were caused by a chemical substance and were of serious nature. The injuries were recent and consistent with the time of the alleged occurrence.

¶90

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court 昀椀nds that the prosecution has successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt through the consistent, cogent and trustworthy testimony of the injured witnesses, duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The statements of PW-1 Chandrabhavan Netam, PW-2 Devaraj Netam, PW3 Jagesh Kumar Netam, and PW-4 Ravi Kumar, as well as the supporting accounts of PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8, clearly narrate the sequence of events, the role of each accused, and the manner in which the chemical substance was procured and used to in昀氀ict burn injuries. Their versions are natural, detailed, and withstand cross-examination on all material particulars.

¶91

16. The medical evidence of Dr. Satish Uike (PW-9), re昀氀ected in Exhibits P/10 to P/14, objectively establishes multiple chemical burn injuries of grievous nature on the exposed and vital parts of all injured persons. The age, location, pattern, and extent of burn injuries are fully consistent with the prosecution version and exclude any possibility of accidental cause or self-in昀氀iction. No material contradiction has been elicited to discredit the medical expert or shake the reliability of his 昀椀ndings. The

¶92

11

¶93

seizure of burnt clothes, the prompt lodging of written complaint (Ex. P/6), and registration of FIR (Ex. P/7), further support the prosecution case and demonstrate the immediacy of reporting, ruling out embellishment or afterthought.

¶94

17. The learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and recorded 昀椀ndings which are supported by reliable material on record. No perversity, illegality or in昀椀rmity has been pointed out by the appellant that would justify interference in appellate jurisdiction.

¶95

18. Accordingly, this Court holds that the conviction of the appellants is well-founded on proper appreciation of evidence and calls for no interference. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is a昀케rmed.

¶96

19. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶97

20. The Trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶98

Sd/-

¶99

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶100

Jyoti

Mohan Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Netam 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

Sijesh @ Ritesh Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravikant Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Latkhor @ Gajendra Kumar Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinay Kumar Yadav @ Binnu Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nokhram Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Uttam Das Panika Vs State of Chhattisgarh