Chhotelal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

Chhotelal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed: conviction under Section 324 IPC affirmed; sentence reduced to the period already undergone (31 days); fine enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/-, the difference of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited within three months and paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC; bail bonds directed to continue for a further period of six months under Section 437-A CrPC.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's finding convicting the appellant under Section 324 IPC is perverse and contrary to the record, the prosecution having failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, so as to warrant interference and acquittal. +1 more

Court's answer

The trial Court's conviction under Section 324 IPC is based on proper appreciation of evidence — the victim's unrebutted testimony of assault by axe, the Medical Officer's evidence of simple incised wounds, and the FSL report showing blood stains on the shirt and baniyan — and is neither perverse nor suffering from illegality warranting interference; the conviction is affirmed.

Ratio / Principle

There are sufficient mitigating factors on record to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone: the assault was committed on sudden provocation due to political rivalry (the appellant's wife lost the panchayat election), the appellant remained in jail during trial for 31 days, is presently aged about 61 years, has no criminal antecedents placed on record, and did not misuse the liberty granted on bail.

Key takeaways

Affirming the conviction under Section 324 IPC, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant, with the fine enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/-; the difference of Rs. 2,000/- is to be deposited before the trial Court within three months and paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC within two months of deposit.ratio¶¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC against judgment dated 28.10.2005 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar (Sessions Trial No. 204/2005) convicting the appellant under Section 324 IPC and sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, the trial Court having acquitted him of Sections 307 and 506(2) IPC for want of proof of intent to kill. Held, affirming the conviction: the victim's testimony that the accused assaulted him with an axe remained unrebutted in cross-examination, was corroborated by the medical evidence of simple incised wounds and by the FSL report showing blood stains on the shirt and baniyan; the finding was based on proper appreciation of evidence and was neither perverse nor illegal. On the alternate plea for leniency, relying on the sentencing principles in State of M.P. v. Najab Khan (2013) 9 SCC 509, Raj Bala v. State of Haryana (2016) 1 SCC 463 and Kokaiyabai Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (2017) 13 SCC 449, and considering that the offence of 15.03.2004 arose from political rivalry on sudden provocation, the appellant had undergone 31 days in custody, was then aged about 61 years, had no criminal antecedents and had not misused his bail liberty, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone with the fine enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/-, the difference of Rs. 2,000/- being payable to the victim as compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC. Appeal partly allowed; bail bonds continued for six months under Section 437-A CrPC.

1

2026:CGHC:4681

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 843 of 2005

1. Chhotelal, S/o Pusauram, aged About 18 Years, R/O Village : Bhinauda Police Station : Sarsiwa, District : Raipur (C.G.)

... Appellant

versus

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

... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadaw, Dy. Government Advocate and Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Judgment on Board

28.01.2026

When the matter was taken up for hearing neither the appellant appeared nor on his behalf any representation was made. Today also the situation is one and the same, therefore, this Court has directed the Secretary, High Court Legal Aid Committee to engage counsel to defend the accused. In pursuance of direction given by this Court, Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate has been engaged as defense counsel for the appellant.

The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.10.2005 passed by the learned

Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADAV YADAV Date: 2026.01.31 16:07:36 +0530

2

Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, in Sessions Trial No. 204/2005 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of IPC for one year with fine amount of Rs. 1000/-.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.03.2004, the accused assaulted the victim at about 12 ‘O’ Clock near the new Tariya Talab village Bhinauda, Baloda Bazar as a result of which the victim sustained injuries on the neck and hand and also threatened him to commit his murder, therefore, he has lodged an FIR which was registered as Crime No. 24/2005 before the Police Station Sarsiva for commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC. The Police after investigation and collecting the material has submitted charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class who committed the matter to the learned Additional Sessions Judge Baloda Bazar for trial and registered as Sessions Case No. 284/2005

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has exhibited the documents namely, First Information Report (Exhibit P/1), Property Seizure Memo (Exhibit P/2), Nazri Naksha (Exhibit P/3), Memorandum (Exhibit P/4), Property Seizure Memo (Exhibit P/5), Letter to Assistant Surgeon for examination of weapon (Exhibit P/6), Letter to the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory Raipur for examination of seized items (Exhibit P/7), Acknowledge Receipt (Exhibit P/8), FSL Report (Exhibit P/9 & P/10), Arrest/Court Surrender Memo (Exhibit P/11), Arrest Notice (Exhibit P/12), Crime Details From (Exhibit P/13), Letter to Assistant Surgeon for examination of injuries of victim (Exhibit P/14), Opinion of Doctor with regard to injuries of victim (Exhibit P/14 ‘A’) and also examined the witnesses as victim (PW-1), Rathram @ Thiblu (PW-2), Chandram

3

(PW-3), Santosh Kumar Pandey, Patwari (PW-4), Arjun Das Manikpuri (PW-5), Vinod Dhruw, Sub-Inspector (PW-6), Dhaniram Manjhi, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-7), R.R. Sahu, Assistant SubInspector (PW-8) and Dr. Umashankar Gupta, Medical Officer (PW-9) to prove the case.

The victim was examined before the trial Court as PW-1 who in his cross-examination has stated that the accused has assaulted him all of sudden by axe (tangiya) causing injuries by which his veins and bone of neck were broken, his shirt was also torned due to axe. Thereafter, Dr. Umashankar Gupta (PW-9) was examined by the prosecution who has examined the victim. Dr. Umashankar (PW-9) has explained the injuries and stated that he found incised wound of 6 cm X 1 cm X 3½ cm in the left side of neck, incised wound of 1 ½ cm X ½ cm X ½ cm on the left hand on the outer side of the upper left arm and opined that these injuries were simple in nature.

The accused has not examined any witnesses, but he was examined under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he has denied the allegations and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the said offence.

Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record, particularly in paragraph 15 has recorded its finding that the prosecution is unable to prove the case for commission of offence by the accused under Section 307 and 506(2) and accordingly, it has acquitted the accused, but it has recorded its finding that accused has assaulted the complainant by axe causing simple injuries, therefore, the trial Court has convicted the accused under Section

4

324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine amount of Rs. 1000/-.

Being aggrieved with the order of conviction, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is perverse and contrary to the record as the prosecution is unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that the axe was not seized and the shirt which has been torned has not been proved during the trial. Even the seizure witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution, thus, prosecution is unable to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and would pray for setting aside the order of conviction and also prayed for acquittal of the appellant.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposing the submission would submit that the shirt which has been torned due to axe has been seized vide seizure memo (Exhibit P/2) wherein it has also been mentioned that the axe has also been seized. The seized properties have been proved by the witness Vinod Dhruw Sub-Inspector. She would further submit that the prosecution to prove the seizure of the axe has examined the seizure witness Arjun Das Manikpuri (PW-5) before the trial Court who in his examination-in-chief has categorically stated that the accused told the Investigating Officer that he has kept the axe in his house, and accordingly a memorandum was prepared which has exhibited (Exhibit P/4) wherein his signature is there. Thereafter, the axe was seized and

5

accordingly, a seizure memo (Exhibit P/5) was prepared in which also his signature is there.

She would further submit that the prosecution after seizing the axe has sent the axe for chemical analysis wherein a report was prepared which was exhibited as (Exhibit P/9) wherein in Exhibit B and B1 i.e. shirt and Baniyan there was blood stain, but in exhibited B1 which is axe, no blood stain was found. Thus, she would submit that the prosecution is able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, as such, she would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

Considering the evidence of the victim wherein he has categorically stated that the accused has assaulted him by axe which remained unrebutted during the cross-examination and in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report also the blood stain was found in the shirt and Baniyan, but in the axe, no blood stain was found. The learned Sessions Judge while convicting the appellant under Section 324 of IPC has categorically recorded its finding that the accused has assaulted the victim with a sharp weapon causing simple injuries which was corroborated by the medical evidence, but it has not been proved that the accused has given threat with intention to kill the victim, therefore, the offence under Section 307 and 506(2) of IPC has not been proved. Since there was clinching evidence and the prosecution has proved the charges under Section 324 of IPC, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo for one year rigorous imprisonment with fine amount of Rs. 1000/-. The finding of

6

the learned trial Court cannot be said to perverse and suffers from illegality warranting interference by this Court as it is based upon proper appreciation of evidence, particularly the evidence of victim, Medical Officer and other materials, accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC deserves to be affirmed.

Learned counsel for the appellant alternatively would submit that there are mitigating factors available on record as the incident took place on 15.03.2004 and more than 21 years have been lapsed, the appellant has already undergone the jail sentence of 31 days, after releasing on bail he never misused the liberty granted to him and except this case, he has no past criminal antecedents. The appellant is now aged about 61 years and nearing to old age, he must be settled with the family and if he is directed to serve out the remaining sentence not only the accused, but his family members will also be adversely affected, as such, he would pray that the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.

Before adverting to the alternate submission advanced by counsel for the appellant, this Court has to ascertain what may be mitigating factors to apply the principle of sentence already undergone. The mitigating factors are always subject to examination by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of State of M.P. Vs. Najab Khan [(2013) 9 SCC 509] has held in paragraph 16 as under:-

“16. In view of the above, we reiterate that in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature

7

of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The Courts must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.”

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Raj Bala Vs. State of Haryana & others [(2016) 1 SCC 463] has held in paragraph 16 as

under:

“16. A Court, while imposing sentence, has a duty to respond to the collective cry of the society. The legislature in its wisdom has conferred discretion on the Court but the duty of the court in such a situation becomes more difficult and complex. It has to exercise the discretion on reasonable and rational parameters. The discretion cannot be allowed to yield to fancy or notion. A Judge has to keep in mind the paramount concept of rule of law and the conscience of the collective and balance it with the principle of proportionality but when the discretion is exercised in a capricious manner, it tantamounts to relinquishment of duty and reckless abandonment of responsibility. One cannot remain a total alien to the demand of the socio-cultural milieu regard being had to the command of law and also brush aside the agony of the victim or the survivors of the victim. Society waits with patience to see that justice is done. There is a hope on the part of the society and when the criminal culpability is established and the discretion is irrationally exercised by the court, the said hope is shattered and the patience is wrecked. It is the duty of the court not to exercise the discretion in such a manner as a consequence of which the expectation inherent in patience, which is the “finest part of fortitude” is destroyed. A Judge should never feel that the individuals who constitute the society as a whole is imperceptible to the exercise of discretion. He should always bear in mind that erroneous and fallacious exercise of discretion is perceived by a visible collective.”

Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Kokaiyabai Yadav vs State of Chhattisgarh [(2017) 13 SCC 449] has held in paragraph 6 as under:-

8

“6. If the object of our justice system is to reform the criminal, the appellant's exemplary conduct has aptly fit the bracket. Punishment can be used as a method of reducing the incidence of criminal behaviour either by incapacitating and preventing them from repeating the offence or by reforming them into lawabiding citizens. Reforming criminals who understand their wrongdoing, are able to comprehend their acts, have grown and nurtured into citizens with a desire to live a fruitful life in the outside world have the capacity of humanising this world. The crime was a result of a conflict between the motive of the mother and her character, with the motive triumphing. However, the 13 years she has spent in the prison, she has built her character moulding it by educating herself and learning the ways of life. The reformed appellant will be able to add value to the life of her now 15-year old son, by taking what she has learnt in these past few years and living by it.”

In light of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that the assault was made due to political rivalry as the appellant’s wife lost panchat election and due to political vendetta, the said offence has been committed by the appellant on sudden provocation without any intention and also considering the fact that the appellant remained in jail during trial for 31 days, and fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- has also been imposed. Presently the accused must have been aged about 61 years as at the time of commission of offence, he was 40 years old. The prosecution has also not placed any material on record indicating the criminal antecedents of appellant. The accused is regularly attending the trial Court after releasing on bail by this Court and has not misused the liberty granted to him while granting bail by this Court, therefore, I am of the view that there are sufficient mitigating factors available on record to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.

9

Accordingly, affirming the conviction under Section 324 of IPC, the sentence is reduced to the period already gone by the appellant by enhancing the fine amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/-. The difference amount of fine i.e. Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand only) shall be deposited by the appellant before the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the same shall be payable by the trial Court to the victim as per Section 357 (3) of the Cr.P.C. as victim compensation within further two month from the date of deposit by the appellant.

Consequently, the instant appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

From the records, it appears that the appellant is on bail and his bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months from today in view of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. A copy of the judgment be also forwarded to the appellant for information.

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Manish