Nogendra Alias Nogu Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nitish Dhruv S/o Late Dhananjay Dhruv Aged About 20 Years (Wrongly Mentioned In The Impugned Order As Dhananjay Dhruv), R/o Potiyadih, P.S. Arjuni, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---Appellant.

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Arjuni, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Respondent

¶16

CRA No. 998/2024

¶17

For Appellant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate.

¶18

CRA No.1896/2024

¶19

For Appellant : Mr. Bhupendra Shrivas, Advocate with Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate For State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL.

¶20

2

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶22

Judgment On Board

¶23

13.11.2025

¶24

Challenge in these criminal appeal is to impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, (CG) in Session Trial No.25/2021, whereby the appellants stand convicted and sentence as under:

¶25

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code.	Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years & fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
	payment of fine 06 months additional RI.

¶26

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant/injured Kishanlal Sahu (PW-2) lodged a report before the concerned Police Station mentioning therein that on 15-11-2020 at about 11:30 a.m., a Gaura Gauri immersion programme was being conducted at Village -Potiyadih, in which, he and other villagers were present. During the said programme, present appellants/accused while holding blades in their hands, were roaming around and brandishing the same. When complainant Kishanlal Sahu objected to their conduct, the accused persons became enraged and abused the complainant with filthy and obscene words referring to his mother and sister and threatened to kill him and, thereafter, by means of a blade, they assaulted the

¶27

3

¶28

complainant and caused injuries below his left ear and on his neck. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant, FIR was registered against the appellants and they have been arrested in the alleged crime.

¶29

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet/challan was filed against the appellants and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against them.

¶30

In order to prove guilt of appellants, prosecution examined total 13 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellants (accused) were recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶31

After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that they are not pressing this appeal on merits and confining their arguments to the quantum of sentence only. They submit that incident had taken place on 15.11.2020, there was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, appellants are only aged about 20-21 years at the time of alleged incident and they have already served about 02 years and 09 months of jail sentence. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to

¶33

4

¶34

appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶35

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that looking to the injury suffered by victim/complainant, leniency should not be shown to appellants.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.

¶37

PW-2/Kishan Lal Sahu (victim/complainant) in his evidence has stated that on 15.11.2020, he alongwith other villagers, were proceeding in a procession to immerse the Gaura Gauri idols at Mata Talab, situated within the village. When we reached near Mata Talab, he (PW-2) noticed that the accused/appellant- Nitish Dhruv was carrying a blade in his hand. Upon noticing the same, he questioned him as to why he was holding the blade and advised him not to carry it. While he was conversing with accused -Nitish Dhruv, at that very moment, the accused/Nagesh (Nogendra Alias Nogu Sahu) arrived at the spot and assaulted him with a blade, as a result of which, he sustained cut injuries above my left ear and below the same ear and also suffered injuries on his neck. Due to the said injuries, profuse bleeding ensued, thereafter, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Dhamtari and during the course of treatment, approximately 18 stitches were applied to the injuries near my left ear and neck.

¶38

5

¶39

Said incident was witnessed by Yuvraj Sinha, Virendra Sahu, Vikram Sahu, Yadram Sahu.

¶40

PW-8/Dr. Vibhor Nanda (Surgeon) in his evidence has stated that on 15.11.2020 at about 4:00 p.m., the Police of Police Station - Arjuni produced the injured-Kishanlal before him for medical examination. Upon conducting the medical examination, he found that the injured had a deep incised wound measuring 3 cm × 2 cm on the left side of the neck; there was a deep incised wound measuring 2 cm × 1 cm on the left posterior part of the head and an abrasion mark on the left side of the jaw. After examining the injured, he opined that nature of the injuries sustained by the injured was simple in nature; medical examination report prepared by him is Exhibit P-13. In his cross-examination, he admitted that injuries sustained by the injured may be caused by the blade.

¶41

Though learned counsel for appellants has not challenged conviction of appellants and restricted their prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record.

¶42

Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants herein and that being

¶43

6

¶44

the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellants are guilty for offence punishable under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶45

As regards the quantum of sentence, considering that incident in question took place on 15.11.2020, manner in which incident have taken place, further the fact that the appellants already served about 02 years and 09 months of jail sentence, they are only aged about 20-21 years at the time of alleged incident, particularly evidence of PW-8/Dr. Vibhor Nanda (Surgeon), who stated in his evidence that nature of the injuries sustained by the injured was simple in nature, this Court is of the opinion that sentence imposed by trial Court upon the appellants (RI for 10 years) appears to be on higher side. So keeping in view all the circumstances, mentioned above, ends of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon appellants is reduced from RI 10 years to RI 05 years.

¶46

In the result, appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of appellants under Section 307/34 of the IPC, sentence imposed upon them under aforesaid Section is reduced from RI for 10 years to RI 05 years. However, fine amount imposed on appellants shall remain intact.

¶47

7

¶48

The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be

¶49

sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶50

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶51

J/-

Nogendra Alias Nogu Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nogendra Alias Nogu 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

Tikesh Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Virendra Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Kumar Tamrakar Vs Sardar Jagir Singh

Adity Shrivas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Neha Pandey Vs Abhilasha Awasthi

Vinayak Jayant Kulkarni Vs State of Chhattisgarh