Chandrabhan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1

2026:CGHC:8015

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRA No. 871 of 2018 Chandrabhan Sahu S/o S/o Hariram Sahu, Aged About 25 Years R/o Boirdih, Police Station Churiya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh … Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Churiya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent ___________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL

¶5

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶6

Judgment on Board

¶7

13/02/2026

¶8

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.06.2018 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.43/2014, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant as under :

¶9

2

¶10

Conviction		Sentence
Under Section 325 of IPC	R.I. for	02 years with fine
	amount	of Rs.3,000/-, in
	default	of payment of fine
	amount, months	additional RI for 06

¶11

Case of prosecution in brief is that two-three days before the incident on 30.08.2014, the applicant Pingla Bai was digging a pit in front of her house to make a latrine. Almost half of the pit had been dug. On the incident on 30.05.2014 at about 6.00 a.m., Deva Bai Rapa, wife of Chandrabhan Sahu, the applicant's neighbour, was filling the dug pit with soil using a shovel. Seeing this, the applicant Pingla Bai asked why she was filling it. On this, she said that you have dug it on the road, why won't I be able to do it. A dispute started between the two on this issue. Upon hearing this argument, the accused, Chandrabhan Sahu, brought a shovel from his house and, using obscene language, demanded that he kill the complainant, Pingala Bai, who was in the pit, by hitting her on the head with the shovel, causing her head to split open. When the complainant's husband, Dhalsingh, and their young son came to rescue her, he assaulted them as well, injuring them. Bhimdas, Champak Sahu, Jhariyarin Bai, Roop Kumar Sinha, and other villagers witnessed the incident. The complainant was taken to the Community Health Center, Chhuriya, where, upon receiving a hospital report, Head Constable Vijay Temurkar of the Chhuriya Police Station was dispatched to the Community Health Center,

¶12

3

¶13

Chhuriya, where he filed a rural complaint based on the complainant's statement. The complainant was then treated.

¶14

On the basis of the dehati nalishi, case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused Chandraman Sahu and taken up for investigation.

¶15

After investigation, on finding evidence of crime against the accused Chandrabhan Sahu, a charge sheet under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was filed in the Court of the then Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajnandgaon, from where the case was transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon.

¶16

After committal proceeding, the case was made over to the learned First Additional Session Judge, Rajnandgaon for conducting the trial. During the trial, learned Trial Court framed the charges for the alleged offence against the accused/appellant and he denied the charge.

¶17

The prosecution examined the 14 witnesses in support of his case, thereafter statement of appellant was recorded, where he pleaded innocence. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment dated 04.06.2018 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 325 of I.P.C. Hence, this appeal.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that he

¶19

4

¶20

does not wants to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further submits that the incident is of the year 2014 and the appellant is facing lis since 2014. Appellant has undergone almost 04 months out of 02 years sentence, therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellant, supported the impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

¶22

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

¶23

Smt. Pingla Bai (PW-1) has stated in her statement that the incident occurred more than two years ago. It was the morning of the incident. She had dug a pit near her garden, which the accused's wife was filling up. She went inside the pit to take out the soil, when the accused brought a spade from his house and hit her on the head with the spade, causing her to fall unconscious. She was taken to Chhuriya Hospital, where she regained consciousness after two or three hours. She further stated that Jhariyani Bai was present at the time of the incident and witnessed

¶24

5

¶25

it. Her husband and son Tameshwar also went to the scene. She was admitted to Rajnandgaon Hospital from Chhuriya Hospital. She remained there for two or three days, after which she was sent to Raipur Hospital. After the incident, one of her arms and legs were not working. She had filed a report about the incident. After filing the report, She had put my thumb impression because her arm was not moving properly, and it is still not working properly.

¶26

Dhaldas Sahu (PW-2) has stated in his statement that Pinglabai is his wife. It has been almost two years since the incident occurred. It happened this morning. They had dug a pit for a septic tank near our house. The accused's wife was filling it, and his wife was trying to clean it out. Seeing his wife digging the pit again, the accused brought a spade from his house and hit my wife on the head with it. When he went to rescue his son, the accused strangled him and also hit his son. Both he and his son were injured by the accused's beating. His wife was admitted to Chhuriya Hospital. He and his son, Hameshwar, were also treated there. His wife was treated first in Chhuriya, then in Rajnandgaon, and then in Raipur. He had the police confiscate his wife's bloodstained saree and blouse. The seizure was recorded which is Exhibit P-1.

¶27

Dr. M.K. Bhuarya (PW-8) who examined the Pingla Bai has stated that :

¶28

6

¶29

There was a deep laceration in the middle of the head, measuring 2 cm by 1 cm by 0.5 cm in length and a broken bone. The patient was vomiting and semi-conscious.

¶30

2- The injured person complained of muscle pain in other parts of the body.

¶31

3- The injuries sustained by the victim were between 4 and 6 hours old and appeared to have been caused by a blunt or rough object. In my opinion, the injuries sustained by the victim were serious. The medical report is Exhibit P-11, parts a through c of which are signed by him.

¶32

4- On the same date, Kaludas Sahu, father Santram Sahu, age 38 years, resident of village Boirdih, police station Chhuriya, was presented for examination. After examination of the said injured, it was found that-

¶33

a- There were indentations on the front of the neck, measuring 0.5 cm by 0.5 cm in length and width.

¶34

b- There were scratches on the right arm, measuring 0.5 cm by 0.5 cm in length and width.

¶35

c- There was a complaint of muscle pain on the left hand and pain in the stomach area.

¶36

d- The injuries mentioned above could have occurred between 4 and 6 hours ago, and could have been caused by the hands and nails. In my opinion, the injuries were of a minor nature. The medical report is Exhibit P12, parts A to C of which are signed by me.”

¶37

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Considering the material available on record

¶38

7

¶39

and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in recordings the findings as regards conviction of the appellant in the aforesaid Section.

¶40

With regard to the sentence part, maximum sentence of the appellant is RI for 02 years. Considering the fact that the date of incident is 30.05.2014 more than 10 years has been lapsed. Further, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the injured and also considering that the appellant has already undergone almost 04 months out of period of 02 years’ sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon him, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court Rs.3,000/- is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the appellant shall pay Rs.10,000/- as a fine amount which shall be payable within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. If the fine amount imposed by the trial Court has already been paid by the appellant, the same shall be adjusted in the enhanced fine amount. In default of payment of the enhanced fine amount, the appellant shall liable to further undergo RI for 03 months. Ordered accordingly.

¶41