Krishna @ Dablu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1

2026:CGHC:2740

The date	The date	The date when the judgment is uploaded on
when the	when the	the website
judgment is	judgment is
reserved	pronounced
		Operative Full
-	16-01-2026	- 19-01-2026

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 1019 of 2007

¶7

Krishna @ Dablu S/o Shri Ramchhabile, aged about 25 years, Occupation Business of Vegetables, R/o Gautam Nagar, Khursipar, Bhilai, Police Chowki-Khursipar, PS Chhawni, Distt. Durg (CG)

¶8

--- Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh through SHO Chhawni, Distt. Durg.

¶11

--- Respondent

¶12

CRA No. 165 of 2008

¶13

Sarjan @Sarvan @Sharvan Singh aged 25 years, S/o Late Dase R/o Gautam Nager, Khursipaar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG)

¶14

--- Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Khursipar.

¶17

--- Respondent

¶18

2

¶19

CRA No. 1151 of 2007

¶20

1 - Rajesh @ Loha Singh S/o Rameshwar Singh Aged About 28 Years, Profession - Mazdoor

¶21

2 - Vinod Singh S/o Rameshwar Singh Aged About 20 Years Profession – Leath Operator

¶22

Both R/o.-Gautamnagar, Khurshipar, Bhilai, P.O.-Khursipar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶23

--- Appellants

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Chhaoni, Post Office Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG)

¶26

--- Respondent

¶27

For Respective Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Dubey, Mr. Aman Tamrakar and Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocates

¶28

For Respondent/State : Mr. Avinash Singh, Govt. Advocate.

¶29

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board

¶30

16/01/2026

¶31

Since all these appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.10.2007 passed by V Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in ST No.134/2006, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment, appellants Rajesh and Sarjan were convicted under Sections 307, 394 & 397 of IPC and appellants Vinod Singh and Krishna were convicted under Sections 307/34 and 394 of IPC. Considering the fact that Section 397

¶32

3

¶33

of IPC is aggravated form of offence u/s 394 of IPC, therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 71 of IPC, appellants Rajesh and Sarjan Singh were sentenced only u/s 307 & 397 of IPC. Thus, the sentence awarded to the appellants is as under:

¶34

Conviction	Sentence
Appellants – Rajesh & Sarjan
Under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.	RI for 05 years, fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 06 months.
Under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code.	RI for 07 years, fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 06 months.
Conviction Appellant – Krisha	Sentence
Under Section 307/34 of Indian	RI for 05 years, fine of Rs.2000/-
Penal Code.	and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 06 months.
Under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code.	RI for 05 years, fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 06 months.

¶35

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶36

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26-01-2006 at about

¶37

8:00 p.m., the complainant Vinay Kumar Chauhan was going to his friend’s house on foot. The accused persons intercepted Vinay near Gautam Nagar and assaulted him with deadly weapons i.e. knife and

¶38

4

¶39

khukhri and robbed him of Rs.5,000 kept in his pocket. The complainant was sent to the hospital located in Bhilai Sector-I by his father. After preliminary medical examination, considering the nature of his injuries, he was admitted to Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Sector-9. At the said hospital, the complainant lodged the First Information Report regarding the incident, which was recorded in writing in the form of a Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P-16). During the course of investigation, on 2701-2006, the accused persons were taken into custody and interrogated. On the basis of the information given by the accused, one knife was seized from accused Rajesh alias Loha Singh vide seizure memo Ex.P-5, and one khukhri was seized from accused Sarjan alias Sarvan Singh vide seizure memo Ex. P-6. Further, cash of Rs.1,000/was seized from accused Rajesh alias Loha Singh vide seizure memo Ex. P-5; Rs.700/- from accused Sarjan alias Sarvan Singh vide seizure memo Ex. P-6; Rs.400/- from accused Vinod Singh vide seizure memo Ex. P-7; and Rs.1,300/- from accused Krishna alias Dablu vide seizure memo Ex. P-8. Thus, a total amount of Rs.3,400/- was recovered. During investigation, statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded, and the spot map of the place of occurrence was prepared. After completing the remaining investigation, the chargesheet was presented before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg on 17-03-2006.

¶40

5

¶41

Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 307, 394, 397 of IPC against all the accused persons and accused Rajesh and Sarjan were also charged u/s 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. The accused persons denied the charges and prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶42

After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused Rajesh and Sarjan of the charges u/s 25 & 27 of the Act and accused Vinod and Krishan of charge u/s 397 of IPC and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence these appeals.

¶43

During pendency of CRA No.1151/2007, appellant No.2 Vinod Singh died and hence vide order dated 2.5.2025, the said appeal in respect of appellant Vinod Singh stood abated and was dismissed as such and it survives only in respect of appellant No.1 Rajesh @ Loha Singh.

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellants jointly submit that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. The ingredients of offence u/s 307 of IPC are not made out in this case.

¶45

6

¶46

Looking to the medical evidence on record, it is clear that the injuries were simple and not dangerous to life at any point of time. The incident occurred all of a sudden while the complainant was passing from the place where the accused persons were sitting and as such, there was no premeditation or planning or intention to attempt to commit his murder. However, the learned trial Court failed to consider this aspect of the matter. They further argued that from the statements of the witnesses it is clear that all the accused persons allegedly looted Rs.5000/- from the injured complainant Vinay and caused him injuries but the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced accused Rajesh and Sarjan u/s 307 and 397 of IPC and accused Vinod and Krishna u/s 307/34 and 394 of IPC which is against the legal principles. They submit that Section 397 of IPC deals with the enhanced punishment only. It is not a substantive offence and the substantive offence is robbery or dacoity. Therefore, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the oral and documentary evidence on record and the settled legal position, the accused/appellants can be, at the most, held guilty under Section 394 of IPC only and looking to the fact that the incident took place way back in the year 2006, they are now middle aged and have already completed 1 ½ years of jail sentence, their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶47

7

¶48

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellants submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellants by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeals being without any substance are liable to be dismissed.

¶49

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

¶50

It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 307, 394, 397 of IPC against all the accused persons and accused Rajesh and Sarjan were also charged u/s 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the accused Rajesh and Sarjan of the charges u/s 25 & 27 of the Act and accused Vinod and Krisha of charge u/s 397 of IPC and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

¶51

PW-3 Vinay Kumar Dubey, injured complainant, states that on 26.1.2006 he went to his friend’s house near Gautam Nagar. The accused persons who were drunk intercepted him and demanded money, they looted Rs.5000/- from his pocket. He states that accused Sarjan assaulted him with knife on his back and accused Rajesh assaulted with knife on his head and and abdomen whereas accused

¶52

8

¶53

Krishna and Vinod caught hold of him. He fell down there, however, his father and Santosh reached the spot and took him to the house. He was admitted in Sector-1 hospital and thereafter referred to Sector-9 Hospital where he narrated the whole incident to the police and Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/16 was accordingly recorded which led to registration of FIR.

¶54

PW-1 Santosh Chauhan, PW-4 Heeralal and PW-6 Santosh Kumar Mahto supporting the statement of the injured complainant Vinay, state that they saw the injury of Vinay Kumar and took him to hospital.

¶55

PW-7 Dr. NK Verma examined injured Vinay Kumar on 26.1.2006 and found penetrating injury over back and lacerated wound over scalp and referred him to Sector-9 Hospital vide his report of Ex.P/17. PW-8 Dr. Sumantam Mishra treated the injured and advised for ultrasonography which was found to be normal. He states that CT scan report of the injured was also normal and hence he was discharged on 28.1.2006. The bedhead ticket is Ex.P/18.

¶56

PW-10 Dr. Lata Dewangan examined x-ray report of the injured Vinay and stated that there was no fracture in the chest, and the heart and lungs were normal. Her report is Ex.P/20 which bears her signature from A to A part.

¶57

9

¶58

From the aforesaid ocular and medical evidence of the witnesses it is clear that the accused persons intercepted the injured complainant, looted Rs.5000/- from him and also caused him injuries which were simple in nature. Sections 307, 394 and 397 of IPC read as under:

¶59

“ 307. Attempt to murder

¶60

Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty or murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is here in before mentioned.

¶61

Attempts by life convicts- When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.

¶62

394. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery

¶63

If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶64

397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt

¶65

If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the

¶66

10

¶67

imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.”

¶68

Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that while looting Rs.5000/- from the complainant, the accused persons also caused him injuries on his back and head with knife. The injured was medically examined, his ultrasonography and x-ray was conducted, in which the doctors did not find any fracture or grievous injuries and opined that the injuries sustained by him are simple in nature. Section 394 of IPC deals with offence of voluntarily causing hurt while committing robbery whereas Section 397 of IPC deals with the enhanced punishment only when the accused at the time of committing robbery or dacoity uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt or attempt to cause death. However, looking to the manner in which the incident occurred, the role attributed to the accused persons and the nature of injuries suffered by the complainant, the ingredients necessary for constituting the offence under Section 307 of IPC are completely missing in this case and as such, the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any attempt to commit murder of the injured by the accused persons and even failed to prove that they caused any grievous injuries to him while committing robbery. Therefore, the accused/appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge under Section 307 of IPC.

¶69

Learned trial Court has convicted the appellants Rajesh and Sarjan under Sections 394 and 397 of IPC also whereas Section 397

¶70

11

¶71

of IPC deals with enhanced punishment only and it’s not a substantive offence. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Kallu @ Ramkumar Vs. State of Madhay Pradesh, 1992 MPLJ 558 observed in para 11 of its judgment as under:

¶72

"11. Learned trial Judge has sentenced the accused persons under sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code separately. Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the enhanced punishment only. It is not a substantive offence. The substantive offence may be robbery or dacoity. In this case, the substantive offence as proved, is dacoity and, therefore, there ought to have been only one sentence. It is a different matter that the enhanced punishment could be inflicted with the aid of section 397 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶73

Consequently, the appeal filed by accused Kallu alias Ramkumar, Barelal and Sukhram is accepted. They are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are on ball. Their ball-bonds are discharged.

¶74

The appeal of accused-appellants Gabbar allas Goverdhan and Chhotu alias Dayaram is dismissed and sentence passed against them under section 395 read with section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., rigorous imprisonment for seven years, is maintained. Appellant No. 1 Gabbar alias Goverdhan is in jail. He be informed with the result of this appeal accordingly. Appellant Chhotu alias Dayaram is on bail. He is directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni, on 11-121991 for serving out the remaining period of sentence."

¶75

12

¶76

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the oral and documentary evidence on record as discussed above, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment of the High Court of MP, this Court is of the opinion that no offence under Section 397 of IPC is made out against the accused/appellants and they are liable to be convicted and sentenced only for the offence under Section 394 of IPC.

¶77

As regards the sentence, considering the fact that the incident occurred way back in the year 2006, the appeals are pending since 2007-08; the age of the appellants i.e. between 25 to 28 years at the time of incident, at present they are middle aged and they have remained in jail for about 1 ½ years, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending them back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be met if they are sentenced to the period already undergone while keeping the fine imposed on them by the trial Court with default stipulation intact.

¶78

In the result, the appeals are allowed in part. The accused/appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections 307 and 397 of IPC and instead they are held guilty u/s 394 of IPC and sentenced thereunder to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine imposed on them u/s 394 of IPC by learned trial Court with default stipulation shall remain intact. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent.

¶79

13

¶80

The accused/appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today.

¶81

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

¶82

Digitally signed MOHD by MOHDAKHTAR KHAN AKHTAR Date: KHAN 2026.01.1917:03:36 +0530

¶83

Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶84

Khan

Krishna @ Dablu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna @ Dablu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satvir Saini Vs Jogendar Singh

Munshiram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nilesh Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajesh @ Loha Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mayank Soni @ Sonu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sarjan @Sarvan @Sharvan Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh