Bhaklu and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA

¶3

NAFR

¶4

2026:CGHC:4470

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 1141 of 2007

¶7

1 - Bhaklu aged 65 years, son of Kholbahra, Occupation - agriculturist, resident of Village Binaika, P. S. Masturi (Chowki Malhar), Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.)

¶8

2 - Ganga Joshi aged 32 years, son of Punit Joshi, Occupation aggriculturist, resident of Village Binaika, P. S. Masturi (Chowki Malhar), Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

3 - Smt. Maniyara Bal aged 27 years, wife of Ganga Joshi, Occupation - aggriculturist, resident of Village Binaika, P. S. Masturi (Chowki Malhar), Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Appellants : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate

¶16

2

¶17

For State/ Respondent : Mr. Avinash Singh. G.A.

¶18

(Single Bench)

¶19

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board

¶20

27.01.2026

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.1Bhaklu died during the pendency of appeal on 03.07.2011 and the same is supported by his death certificate and the appeal in respect of him, stands abated.

¶22

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arising out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.11.2007 passed by the XI^th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur in Sessions Case No. 132/2007, whereby the appellants/accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with a further rigorous imprisonment for one month in default of payment of fine, and rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (two counts).

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.02.2007 at about 7:00 A.M., the complainant Kamdas was digging a drain in front of his house to facilitate the outflow of rainwater that had accumulated in the courtyard of his house due to heavy rainfall during the

¶24

3

¶25

previous night. It is alleged that the old drain situated in front of the house of accused Bhaklu had earlier been filled up by him. When the complainant Kamdas started digging the said drain to clear the passage for drainage of water, accused Bhaklu objected to the same and restrained him from digging. At that time, Prembai, the wife of the complainant Kamdas, stated that the drain had to be constructed so that the accumulated water could be drained out. Thereafter, the three accused persons allegedly started quarrelling and manhandling Prembai. It is alleged that accused Maniyarabai caught hold of Prembai, while accused Ganga and Bhaklu dragged her by holding her hair, and Bhaklu also slapped her. It is further the case of the prosecution that when the complainant Kamdas attempted to intervene in order to pacify the situation, the accused persons rushed towards him, abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. At that moment, accused Maniyarabai and Ganga allegedly caught hold of Kamdas, and accused Bhaklu struck him on the head with a spade (Raapa), causing a bleeding injury. It is also alleged that accused Maklu kicked Santoshi, the daughter of Kamdas. Upon witnessing the incident, Gulab and Saheenlal intervened and attempted to pacify the parties. Thereafter, Kamdas informed the Kotwar, Sukhiram, about the incident. Subsequently, Kamdas along with Kotwar Sukhiram, his wife Prembai and their daughter Santoshi went to the Malhar Outpost and lodged a report regarding the incident, whereupon a First

¶26

4

¶27

Information Report was recorded and the injured persons were sent for medical treatment.

¶28

On the basis of the said incident, a First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Masturi, pursuant to which Crime No. 49/2007 was registered. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506-B, 307 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined the complainant as an injured witness, other alleged eyewitnesses to the incident, the medical officers who examined the injured persons, and the Investigating Officer. The defence denied the allegations and contended that the incident had been exaggerated due to prior animosity between the parties arising out of a neighborhood dispute relating to drainage.

¶30

Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court held the appellants guilty of the offence charged and sentenced them accordingly. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is wholly unsustainable in law as the essential ingredient of intention or knowledge to cause death is completely absent from the factual matrix of the case. It is

¶32

5

¶33

contended that the incident arose out of a sudden quarrel between neighboring families regarding drainage of rainwater and that the occurrence was purely spontaneous in nature, without any prior planning or premeditation on the part of the appellants. According to the learned counsel, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted at its highest, it would at best disclose a case of simple hurt arising out of a sudden altercation and not an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. It is further submitted that the prosecution evidence itself reveals that the alleged assault consisted of a single blow and there was no repeated attack or deliberate attempt to cause fatal injury. The surrounding circumstances of the incident and the conduct attributed to the accused persons do not indicate any intention to cause death so as to attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC. Learned counsel therefore contends that the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence of attempt to murder are clearly absent in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, particularly with regard to the attribution of the overt act. It is pointed out that while the First Information Report primarily attributes the assault to accused Bhaklu, certain witnesses in their depositions before the Court have stated that accused Ganga inflicted the blow with the Raapa. Such contradictions, according to the learned counsel, create serious doubt regarding the actual role played by each of the accused persons and weaken the

¶34

6

¶35

prosecution case. It is further argued that the seizure of the alleged weapon of offence and other incriminating articles suffers from serious procedural infirmities. The alleged Raapa and bloodstained clothes were seized on 20.03.2007, which is more than a month after the date of the incident i.e. 13.02.2007, and the seizure has not been supported by independent witnesses. In the absence of reliable corroboration or any forensic linkage connecting the seized articles with the injuries sustained by the complainant, the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily prove the alleged recovery. Learned counsel submits that such lapses in investigation assume considerable significance, particularly when the charge alleged is of attempt to murder.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the parties were neighbours and there existed prior enmity between them relating to drainage issues, which provided a motive for exaggeration of the incident and false implication of all the accused persons by invoking Section 34 IPC. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish any common intention shared by all the accused persons to commit the alleged offence. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions challenging the conviction, learned counsel lastly submits that the sentence imposed upon the appellants is harsh and disproportionate to the circumstances of the case. It is pointed out that accused Bhaklu is an elderly person and that the incident pertains to the year 2007. It is further submitted that the appellants have already undergone

¶37

7

¶38

a substantial period of incarceration. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside, or in the alternative, the sentence imposed upon the appellants be suitably reduced.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and supports the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the prosecution case primarily rests upon the testimony of the injured witness, Kamdas, whose presence at the place of occurrence is natural, cogent and undisputed. Learned State counsel contends that the testimony of an injured witness carries a higher evidentiary value in the eyes of law and ordinarily deserves great weight and credibility, as such a witness is unlikely to falsely implicate the accused while shielding the real assailant. Learned State counsel further submits that the medical evidence on record fully corroborates the ocular version of the prosecution witnesses. It is pointed out that the complainant sustained a serious injury on a vital part of the body, namely the head, which resulted in a skull fracture. According to the State, the use of a sharp-edged weapon in causing such an injury clearly demonstrates that the accused had the knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, thereby attracting the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also contended that the

¶40

8

¶41

conduct of all the accused persons during the course of the incident clearly establishes their active participation and the existence of a common intention. The evidence on record indicates that the accused persons collectively restrained and assaulted the complainant and also extended threats to him and his family members. In such circumstances, the invocation of Section 34 IPC by the prosecution is fully justified.

¶42

Learned State counsel further submits that the alleged inconsistencies pointed out by the appellants are minor in nature and do not affect the core of the prosecution case. It is argued that minor discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses are but natural, particularly when the witnesses depose after a considerable lapse of time. However, the central version of the prosecution, namely that the complainant was assaulted with a sharp weapon resulting in grievous injury, remains consistent and unshaken. Lastly, learned State counsel submits that the learned Trial Court has carefully and meticulously appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and has recorded well-reasoned findings of guilt against the appellants. It is therefore contended that no perversity, illegality or miscarriage of justice has been demonstrated by the appellants so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.

¶43

9

¶44

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the appeal with utmost circumspection.

¶45

In order to appreciate the rival submissions and to ascertain the manner in which the alleged incident took place, it is necessary to examine the evidence led by the prosecution. The prosecution has examined several witnesses including the injured witness, his family members, independent witnesses, medical experts, and the investigating officer. The testimony of these witnesses is required to be scrutinized in order to determine whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the material witnesses is, therefore, discussed hereinafter.

¶46

Gulab Singh (PW-1) deposed that on the day of the incident at about 7:00 a.m., while he was proceeding towards his field during rainfall, he noticed Kamdas and the accused persons arguing near the house of Chetan regarding the construction of a drain. However, he categorically stated that he did not witness any assault between the parties as he proceeded further towards his field. When confronted by the prosecution with his earlier police statement, he admitted that there had been a quarrel between Kamdas and the accused concerning the drain but denied that he had seen the actual assault or that he intervened in the incident. He also denied the suggestion that he had seen Kamdas bleeding from the head and that he had tied a towel or handkerchief around

¶47

10

¶48

Kamdas’s head. Thus, Gulab Singh did not support the prosecution case regarding the assault and was treated as a hostile witness.

¶49

Saheblal (PW-2) stated that on the day of the incident at around 7:00 a.m., he had gone to the pond for bathing and, at that time, noticed a dispute between Kamdas and the accused persons near the road regarding the construction of a drain. However, he further stated that he left the place to go to the market and therefore did not witness any fight or assault between the parties. During his examination by the prosecution, he denied the contents of his previous police statement wherein it was suggested that he had tried to intervene in the quarrel by asking them not to fight. Consequently, his testimony only establishes the existence of a dispute between the parties but does not support the prosecution version regarding the actual assault.

¶50

Kamdas (PW-7), the injured witness, stated that on the day of the incident at about 7:00 a.m., he was clearing a drain near his house when the accused persons came and began abusing him. According to him, accused Bhaklu first caught hold of his wife Prembai by the hair and threw her on the ground. When his daughter Santoshi came to intervene, Bhaklu kicked her as well. When Kamdas tried to stop them, accused Maniyarabai caught hold of his leg and Bhaklu held his arm. Thereafter, accused Ganga Joshi struck him on the head with a spade, as a result of which he fell unconscious. He further stated that after regaining

¶51

11

¶52

partial consciousness at the police station, he narrated the incident to the police and his thumb impression was obtained on the report as he is illiterate. His testimony regarding the manner of assault was consistent and was corroborated by the statements of Prembai (PW-8) and the child witness Santoshi (PW-9).

¶53

Prembai (PW-8), the wife of injured Kamdas, deposed that on the night preceding the incident there had been heavy rainfall due to which water had accumulated in their house. On the following morning at about 7:00 a.m., she and her husband were digging a drain outside their house with a spade to allow the water to flow out. At that time, the three accused arrived and began abusing them. When she told them that the water had to be drained from their house, the accused objected and refused to allow the drain to be made. Accused Bhaklu then caught her by the hair and assaulted her. When her younger daughter Santoshi came to intervene, Bhaklu kicked her as well. Prembai further stated that accused Maniyarabai caught hold of her husband Kamdas’s legs while Bhaklu held his hands and body, and thereafter accused Ganga Joshi struck Kamdas on the left side of his head with a spade, causing him to fall unconscious. She further stated that no other persons were present at the time as it was drizzling. According to her, when Gulab Singh later arrived at the spot the accused fled away. Her testimony remained consistent and could not be shaken in cross-examination.

¶54

12

¶55

Ms. Santoshi (PW-9), the minor daughter of Kamdas and Prembai, was examined as a child witness after the Court found her competent to testify. She stated that when it had rained heavily, her parents were clearing the drain outside their house early in the morning when the accused persons arrived. She testified that accused Bhaklu held her father’s hands and accused Maniyarabai held his legs, while accused Ganga struck her father on the head with a spade, causing him to fall down. She further stated that Bhaklu also assaulted her mother and when she went near them, Bhaklu kicked her as well. The Court found that her testimony was natural and credible and that there was no indication that she had been tutored by her parents. Her statement corroborated the version given by Kamdas and Prembai regarding the incident.

¶56

Dr. P.K. Ghosh (PW-5) deposed that on 13.02.2007 at about 10:15 a.m., he examined injured Kamdas at the Primary Health Centre, Malhar. He found an incised wound measuring approximately 6 × 1 cm on the right side of the head which appeared to have been caused by a hard and heavy object within about eight hours of examination. Considering the seriousness of the injury, he referred Kamdas to SIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for further treatment. He also examined injured Santoshi and found a contusion measuring about 2 × 2 cm on her chest caused by a hard and blunt object. Further, upon examining Prembai, he found three contusions on her body, one on the face, one on the forehead and

¶57

13

¶58

one on the palm, caused by a hard and blunt object. He proved the respective medical reports prepared by him.

¶59

Dr. D.K. Sao (PW-10) testified that Kamdas was admitted to SIMS, Bilaspur on 13.02.2007 for treatment and remained hospitalized until 21.02.2007. He confirmed that during treatment an X-ray and CT scan were conducted which revealed a depressed fracture of the temporal bone of Kamdas’s skull along with other internal injuries. He proved the discharge ticket and medical documents relating to Kamdas’s treatment and confirmed that the injuries were serious in nature.

¶60

Dr. Anil Kumar Pratap Singh (PW-12) stated that he conducted an X-ray examination of Kamdas’s skull on 13.02.2007 at the Surgery Department of SIMS, Bilaspur. The X-ray revealed a depressed fracture of the left fronto-parietal bone of the skull, and on that basis he advised a CT scan for further evaluation. Although he admitted during cross-examination that such an injury could also occur if a person fell on a hard surface, the overall medical evidence indicated that the injury was consistent with being caused by a heavy sharp weapon.

¶61

S.N. Mishra (PW-11), the Investigating Officer, stated that on 13.02.2007 Kamdas came to the police station and lodged a report on the basis of which the FIR was registered and Kamdas’s thumb impression was obtained. He further stated that he sent the injured persons for medical examination, prepared the spot map of the place of occurrence and seized blood-stained clothes and

¶62

14

¶63

other articles during investigation. He also deposed that the seized weapon was examined and that the injuries sustained by Kamdas could have been caused by the said weapon. His testimony also confirmed that the seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.

¶64

Having examined the evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case substantially rests upon the testimony of the injured witness Kamdas (PW-7). The law is well settled that the testimony of an injured witness occupies a special place in criminal jurisprudence. An injured witness is considered to be a natural witness to the occurrence and his presence at the place of incident cannot ordinarily be doubted. Unless compelling reasons exist to discard such testimony, the same is entitled to great weight and credibility.

¶65

In the present case, Kamdas (PW-7) has categorically deposed that on the day of the incident at about 7:00 a.m., while he was clearing a drain in front of his house to facilitate the outflow of rainwater accumulated due to heavy rainfall during the previous night, the accused persons came there and began abusing him. According to him, accused Bhaklu first caught hold of his wife Prembai by her hair and threw her on the ground. When his daughter Santoshi came to intervene, accused Bhaklu kicked her as well. When Kamdas attempted to intervene in order to stop the quarrel, accused Maniyarabai caught hold of his leg while accused Bhaklu held his arm. Thereafter, accused Ganga Joshi

¶66

15

¶67

struck him on the head with a spade, as a result of which he fell unconscious. He further stated that after regaining partial consciousness at the police station, he narrated the incident to the police and his thumb impression was obtained on the report as he is an illiterate person. The testimony of Kamdas (PW-7) finds material corroboration from the statements of Prembai (PW-8) and the child witness Santoshi (PW-9). Both these witnesses have consistently stated that the accused persons had come to the spot when the complainant and his wife were clearing the drain and that a quarrel ensued regarding the drainage of water. Their statements further corroborate the fact that the accused persons restrained Kamdas and that one of them struck him on the head with a spade, causing him to sustain a bleeding injury. The testimony of Santoshi (PW-9), though of a child witness, appears to be natural and spontaneous and the Trial Court has rightly found her competent to depose. Nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses to discredit their testimony.

¶68

The ocular version of the prosecution witnesses also finds support from the medical evidence on record. Dr. P.K. Ghosh (PW-5), who examined the injured Kamdas shortly after the incident, found an incised wound on the head of the injured which appeared to have been caused by a hard and heavy object. The said witness also proved the medical reports relating to the injuries sustained by Prembai and Santoshi. Further, the evidence of Dr. D.K. Sao (PW-

¶69

16

¶70

and Dr. Anil Kumar Pratap Singh (PW-12) establishes that Kamdas had sustained a depressed fracture of the skull and had to remain hospitalized for several days. Thus, the medical evidence clearly corroborates the prosecution version that the complainant sustained a serious injury on his head during the course of the incident. The defence has attempted to point out certain contradictions between the First Information Report and the testimony of the witnesses regarding the exact role attributed to each of the accused persons. However, upon careful scrutiny, this Court finds that such discrepancies are minor in nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. The consistent thread running through the evidence of the material witnesses is that all the accused persons were present at the spot, that they participated in the quarrel and assault, and that Kamdas sustained a head injury as a result of the act committed by one of the accused while the others restrained him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, such minor variations regarding the specific overt act attributed to each accused cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution case.

¶71

At the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the surrounding circumstances in which the incident occurred. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the dispute arose suddenly between neighbouring families regarding drainage of rainwater. There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused persons had come to the spot with any premeditated plan or intention to commit a

¶72

17

¶73

serious offence. The quarrel appears to have erupted spontaneously during the course of a neighbourhood dispute relating to the clearing of a drain. Although Kamdas sustained a grievous injury (incised wound of 6 cm x 1 cm x skindeep) on his head, the prosecution evidence itself indicates that only a single blow was inflicted during the course of the altercation and the Dr. P. K. Ghosh (PW-5) in para 6 of his cross-examination has admitted that the said injury could have been sustained due to fall on solid surface or edge of wall or edge of pole. There is no evidence of repeated assault or any deliberate attempt by the accused persons to ensure the death of the complainant.

¶74

In order to attract the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must establish that the accused had the intention or knowledge that the act was likely to cause death. In the present case, considering the sudden nature of the quarrel, the absence of premeditation and the fact that only a single blow was inflicted during the altercation which according to Dr. PW-6 could have been sustained due to fall on solid surface or edge of wall or edge of pole, it would not be safe to hold that the accused had the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death. Nevertheless, the evidence on record in particular the nature and extent of injury sustained by injured clearly establishes that the accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to Kamdas, Prembai and Santoshi during the course of the incident. The participation of all the accused persons in the assault is

¶75

18

¶76

sufficiently established from the consistent testimony of the injured witness and the other eyewitnesses. Their acts, therefore, squarely attract the offence of voluntarily causing hurt with the aid of common intention.

¶77

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that although the involvement of the accused persons in the assault is proved, the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is not fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and the act attributed to the appellant for offence under Section 307/34 of IPC appropriately fall within the ambit of Section 326 of IPC offences relating to causing voluntarily hurt. However, considering that the incident in question took place in the year 2007 and that the appellants have already undergone a part of the sentence during the course of trial and appeal, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately served if the sentence imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone.

¶78

Consequently, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 323 (on two counts) read with Section 34 of IPC, their conviction under Section 307/34 of IPC is altered to Section 326/34 of IPC and the sentence imposed thereunder is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶79

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. The appellants are on bail. The appellants’ bail

¶80

19

¶81

bonds shall remain in force for a further period of six months in accordance with Section 437-A of the CrPC.

¶82

Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and the copy of this judgment be supplied to the concerned Superintendent of Jail, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶83

SD/-

¶84

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶85

Arpan

Bhaklu and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaklu and Ors. 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

Mansai Vs Avinash Champavat

Ashwani Kumar Bandhe Vs Union of India

Ram Lal Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shailendra @ Santosh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jeevanlal Bhariya Vs Pushpendra Sharma

Jai Singh (Formerly Known as Jeevan Lal Barman) Vs Rajendra Kumar Anchal