Narsu Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant / accused under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16^th December, 2021 passed by Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 32/2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months.

¶16

2

¶17

2 . Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.11.2019 in the night at about 8 PM when complainant – Ayaturam Yadav (PW-4) was sleeping in his hut alongwith his family members, then on previous enmity, appellant sustained him injury with “Bow & arrow” on his chest. FIR (Ex.P-12) was lodged at Police Station Sukuma, District Sukuma against the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. After usual investigation, charge-sheet for the aforesaid offence was filed against the appellant before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sukuma, who, in turn committed, the case to the Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada, thereafter, the case was tried by Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada.

¶18

3. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 307 of the IPC against the appellant and the same was read and explained to him, who abjured his guilt and claimed trial.

¶19

4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, pleaded innocence and false implication. The appellant has not examined any witness in support of his defence.

¶20

5. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned Sessions Judge vide its impugned judgment dated 16^th December, 2021 acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 307 IPC, instead thereof, it convicted him for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him,

¶21

3

¶22

as has been mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment. Against which, instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant in the instant appeal.

¶23

6. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused submits that he is not pressing this appeal as regards conviction part of the impugned judgment and would confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He further submits that complainant / victim had sustained only one injury, that too, was simple in nature; appellant remained in jail during trial from 30.11.2019 to 20.03.2020 i.e. 3 months & 20 days. It is next contended that this was first crime registered against the appellant, who is a resident of the village. It is further contended that incident occurred because of previous enmity, hence, interest of justice would be served if the jail sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him, as mentioned above.

¶24

7. Per contra, learned counsel of the State/respondent supported the impugned judgment of conviction, as also the sentence part of the judgment.

¶25

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including judgment of the Special Court with utmost circumspection.

¶26

9. Though, learned counsel for the appellant does not want to press this appeal on conviction part of the impugned judgment, but having considered the ocular evidence of complainant/victim (PW-4), his nephew Dhaniram Yadav (PW-9) & his son Mahruram Yadav (PW-10) and further considering the medical evidence of Dr. Dhananjay Thakur (PW-8) and Dr. P. Varun (PW-7), it is found that learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error

¶27

4

¶28

in holding guilty appellant for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC, therefore, conviction part of the impugned judgment is hereby affirmed.

¶29

10. So far as sentence part of the impugned judgment is concerned, the appellant had inflicted only one injury to the victim (PW-4), that too, has been reported to be simple in nature in medical evidence. Incident occurred because of previous enmity; the appellant has already remained in jail during trial from 30.11.2019 to 20.03.2020 i.e. 3 months & 20 days; no previous criminal antecedent has been proved against the appellant; this court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in again sending him behind the bar for serving out remaining jail sentence and ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, as mentioned above.

¶30

11. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellant is maintained, as also imposition of punishment of fine is maintained but jail sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him, as above.

¶31

12. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond shall remain in operation for a further period of six months as per the provisions contained in Section 481 of the of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶32

13. Record of the Sessions Judge alongwith a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for necessary compliance and needful, if any.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶35

Judge

¶36

AMITKUMAR Digitally signedby AMITKUMAR DUBEYDate: DUBEY 2026.01.0612:25:17 +0530

¶37

amit