Salik Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010005112016

2026:CGHC:30267

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 599 of 2016

¶7

Salik Ram S/o Ramlal Gond Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Bhathapara Munmuna, Police Station - Kukdur, Civil And Revenue District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Kukdur, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh

¶11

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Appellant.	: Mr. Chandrikadtya Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent/State.	: Mr. Kulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶14

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

16/07/2026

¶17

In pursuance of the bailable warrant issued by this Court for securing presence of the appellant, he is present with his counsel and with the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

¶18

The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of

¶19

2

¶20

conviction and order of sentence dated 28-4-2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), District Kabirdham in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2015 wherein the said Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the following manner.

¶21

CONVICTION SENTENCE

¶22

Under Section 506-B of RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/, IPC in default of payment of fine amount to undergo further RI for three months.

¶23

2 Under Section 326 of RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/, IPC in default of payment of fine amount to undergo further RI for three months.

¶24

Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.

¶25

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged FIR (Ex. P/1) before Police Station Kukdur, District Kabirdham against the appellant alleging that on 4-9-2015 at about 12.30 in the morning when he was sitting in the house then his daughter-in-law Pramila Bai informed him that the appellant abused her husband Ramdayal and assaulted him by stick on his left temple due to dispute of grazing of cow in the field of appellant. He has also threatened him to kill, because of the injury, her husband became unconscious and blood was oozing from the mouth. It is also alleged that the incident was witnessed by Sarpanch Gopal Dewangan, Panch Antram and Ramlal Dhruve. Thereafter, the injured was taken

¶26

3

¶27

to Government Hospital, Pandariya by Ambulance for treatment. The victim was examined by Dr. Balram Jaiswal, Community Health Centre, Pandariya, vide Ex.P/14. On the basis of the said FIR bearing Crime No. 70/2015 offence under Sections 294, 506B and 307 IPC was registered against the appellant.

¶28

During course of investigation, the Police have recorded memorandum statement of the accused/appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and on his memorandum statement (Ex. P/6) wooden plank (stick) by which the accused has assaulted the victim was seized vide property seizure memo (Ex. P/7).

¶29

After completion of investigation and collection of material, the prosecution has submitted the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pandariya, District Kabirdham Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pandariya, District Kabirdham, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham for trial, in accordance with law.

¶30

In order to bring home guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses namely Jugut Ram (PW/1), Ramdayal s/o Jugut Ram (PW2), Smt. Prameela (PW/3), Panchram Shyam (PW/4), Ramdayal s/o. Patiram (PW/5), Jai Singh (PW/6), Ram Singh (PW/7), B.S. Rajput, Inspector (PW/8), Alexander Ekka (PW/9), Dr. Balram Jaiswal (PW/10), J.S. Varkde (PW/11) and exhibited documents from Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/18.

¶31

Statement of accused/appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he has denied the allegations leveled against

¶32

4

¶33

him and pleaded innocence and false implication. The accused abjured his guilt and to prove his innocence, the appellant in his support has examined Dharmin Bai (DW/1) and exhibited the statement of Pramila Bai (Ex.D/1).

¶34

Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, vide its judgment dated 28-4-2016 has held that appellant has committed the offence under Sections 506-B and 326 of I.P.C. and thereby sentenced him for the offence as mentioned in opening paragraph of the judgment. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction & order of sentence, instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the same. This Court while admitting the instant appeal on 5-5-2016 has granted bail to the appellant. The record of the case would show that during trial the appellant remained in jail from 05-09-2015 to 23-12-2015 i.e. for three months and 20 days.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that learned trial Court has not appreciated the injury in proper perspective and has not scanned the evidence properly and only on the basis of the statement of the victim, learned trial Court has convicted the appellant which is bad-in-law. He would further submit that the learned trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant on the basis of evidence as there are number of omissions and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses recorded before the trial Court and the statement recorded under Section 161 of the

¶36

5

¶37

Cr.P.C.

¶38

He would further submit that the learned trial Court has wrongly applied the provisions of Sections 506-B and 326 of IPC against the appellant. Even, if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, the appellant cannot be convicted for commission of offence under Sections 506-B and 326 of IPC. He would further submit that looking to the entire evidence as collected by the prosecution, the offence under Sections 506-B and 326 of IPC is not made out and the appellant ought to have been acquitted by the Court below. The learned trial Court on perverse finding has passed the impugned judgment which is liable to be set aside by this Court and would pray for allowing the appeal.

¶39

Alternatively, he would submit that the incident took place in the year 2015 and the appeal is pending since 2015, the appellant is now aged more than 46 years; the appellant remained in jail for 3 months and 20 days and he did not misuse the liberty while bail granted by this Court, as such, he would pray for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by him.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, as such, there is no scope for interference by this Court. Therefore, this appeal being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

6

¶42

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection.

¶43

From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the point emerged for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and finding of the conviction is liable to be interfered by this Court or the prayer of the appellant for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant can be considered in view of the facts and circumstances of the case?

¶44

To appreciate the point emerged for determination, it is expedient for this Court to go through the evidence brought on record by the prosecution.

¶45

Ramdayal (PW/2) in his examination in chief has reiterated the allegations made in the FIR wherein he has stated that due to grazing of his cow in the field of appellant, objection was raised by the wife of the appellant, and thereafter when he was standing along with his children, at that time the accused/appellant abused him, threatened him to kill and thereafter he assaulted him on his left temple, therefore, he became unconscious. Thereafter this witness was extensively cross examined by the counsel of the appellant, but nothing was diluted or rebutted on the said statement made by the victim. The statement of the victim was duly supported by the medical evidence of Dr. Balram Jaiswal (PW/10) who has affirmed the injury caused to the victim and stated that the injury caused to the victim may be caused by hard and blunt object within 24 hours.

¶46

7

¶47

He has also stated that because of the assault on the head, death is possible. As such, he has fully supported the case of the prosecution.

¶48

Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material on record, particularly appreciating the evidence of the victim which was duly corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Balram Jaiswal (PW/10) has recorded its finding that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out, but the offence under Sections 506-B and 326 of IPC is made out. Accordingly, it has convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 506-B and 326 of IPC as stated above.

¶49

The injured person has been cross-examined by the accused extensively before the trial Court but he is unable to rebut the evidence regarding his involvement in the commission of offence as well as injury caused to the injured person. Considering the well settled position of law that an accused can be convicted on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim , provided the Court finds the testimony to be credible, trustworthy and of sterling quality . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the evidentiary value of injured witness in case of Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs State of Maharashtra {2023 (13) SCC 365} wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

¶50

"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under- noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:-

¶51

(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.

¶52

(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow

¶53

8

¶54

the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.

¶55

(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.

¶56

(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.

¶57

(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.

¶58

(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."

¶59

From the aforesaid evidence of injured person as well as evidence of the doctor, it is quite vivid that the injured person has got injury and presence of the accused at the place of occurrence is not rebutted by the appellant. Thus, from the medical evidence as well as ocular testimony of the injured person, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the accused has caused injury to the victim. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that so far as judgment of conviction passed against the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 506-B and 326 of IPC cannot be found faulty or suffers from perversity or illegality warranting any interference, therefore, the appeal to that extent is liable to be dismissed by affirming the finding of conviction passed by the trial Court.

¶60

However, this Court is considering the alternate submission made by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶61

9

¶62

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that during trial, the appellant remained in incarceration 3 months and 20 days, and he has already deposited the fine amount of Rs.1000/- in each offence. He would further submit that the incident took place in the year 2015 and more than 11 years have been elapsed, now the appellant is aged about 46 years and has settled in life, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the sentence imposed by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant while enhancing the fine amount and maintaining conviction under Sections 505-B and 326 of IPC.

¶63

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the aforesaid submission would submit that the appellant has assaulted the injured person very brutally, therefore, conviction as awarded by the trial Court cannot be found faulty and would pray for rejection of the prayer for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.

¶64

Before considering the submission made by the parties, it is expedient for this Court to briefly survey the law on the mitigating factors as considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment reported in 2021 (20) SCC 24 in the case of Surinder Singh vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) has held as under:-

¶65

“34. The equality of ratio between two sets of variables is now well known as the doctrine of proportionality. The bedrock of sentencing policy in our criminal justice system is also based on the axiom of proportionality. This principle of commensurate sentencing treats offenders as agents capable of evaluating their own illegal conduct and the social censure associated with it, which is communicated to them by

¶66

10

¶67

imposing a proportionate sentence. [ Andrew Ashworth, Sentencing and Criminal Justice (5th Edn., Cambridge University Press 2010)] The exercise for assessing “proportionality” is thus dependent upon the gravity of the offence which is determined according to — (a) mischief caused or risk involved in the offence; (b) the overall conduct of the offender and; (c) motives ascribed to the felon. Further, the equality of treatment so as to eliminate discriminatory practices in the award of sentencing, is integral to the canons of proportionality. Needless to say, the guarantee of evenhandedness before the law(s), as enshrined in Article 14 of our Constitution, encompasses the administration of criminal justice system as well.

¶68

Having said that, we cannot be incognizant of the fact that there are practical difficulties in achieving absolute consistency in regards to sentencing. It must be candidly acknowledged that there is an element of discretion present while adjudicating the issue of sentence, however, the same cannot be exercised in an unprincipled manner. This Court has explicitly ruled out the practice of awarding disproportionate sentences, especially those that showcase undue leniency, for it would undermine the public confidence in efficacy of law.

¶69

The sentencing policy, therefore, keeps pace with changing time. Undoubtedly, the primary emphasis while deciding the quantum of sentence should lie on the gravity or penal value of the offence. However, other guiding elements of rehabilitative justice model, including, appreciation of grounds for mitigation of sentence also deserve to be duly considered within the permissible limits of judicial discretion. The awarding of just and proportionate sentence remains the solemn duty of the courts and they should not be swayed by non-relevant factors while deciding the quantum of sentence. Naturally, what factors should be considered as “relevant” or “non-relevant” will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, and no straitjacket formula can be laid down for the same.”

¶70

Considering the submission made by the parties, law on the subject and also considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2015, at the time of incident the appellant was 35 years and now he must be 46 years, more than 11 years have already been elapsed and the appellant was granted bail after remaining in incarceration for 3 months and 20 days and the prosecution is unable to place on record any further commission of offence of similar nature, as such

¶71

11

¶72

there are mitigating facts available on record to reduce the sentence to the extent already undergone by the appellant. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant’s conviction for commission of offence under Sections 506-B and 326 of IPC is affirmed. However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appelalnt which is 3 months and 20 days.

¶73

Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the sentence imposed by the trial Court deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant by enhancing the fine amount from Rs.1000/- to Rs. 3000/for each of the offence to be payable to the victim within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the sentence awarded by the trial Court shall be restored. It is also directed that fine amount deposited earlier shall be adjusted towards the enhanced fine amount which has to be payed by the appellant. The enhanced fine amount of Rs.4,000/- shall be deposited before the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, thereafter the trial Court will issue a notice to the victim for withdrawal of the same and if the same is not deposited within the time stipulated period as directed by this Court, the sentence awarded by the trial Court will be restored and the trial Court will proceed to execute the sentence in accordance with law.

¶74

Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellant is reported to be on bail and his bail bonds shall continue for further period of six months in view of Section 481

¶75

12

¶76

of BNSS 2023.

¶77