Ram Milan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

... State _________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi along with Mr. Ritesh Banerjee, Advocates. For State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, PL

¶11

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgement on Board

¶12

22.04.2026

¶13

This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 29.09.2007 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Mungeli District- Mungeli (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 08/2007, wherein the said Court convicted

¶14

the appellant and sentenced him as under:-

¶15

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 304-II of IPC	R.I. for 05 years, with fine amount
	of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment
	of fine, to undergo additional R.I.

¶16

2

¶17

for one month.

¶18

As per the prosecution case, Bhaduwa Ram and Ganga Ram had separated long back, but a dispute continued between them regarding agricultural land and a garden (badi). Ganga Ram had earlier filed a civil case in respect of the said property, which was ultimately decided in favour of Bhaduwa Ram. The garden of Bhaduwa Ram was situated adjacent to his house. On 03.05.2006, while Bhaduwa Ram was working in his garden, the accused person- Ram Milan along with coaccused persons namely Ganga Ram, and Bhagwat, reached the spot armed with a sickle and sticks and assaulted him. They inflicted multiple injuries all over his body, due to which he fell unconscious on the spot. At the time of the incident, the complainant- Dujram (PW-5) and his brother Ramayan had gone to the field to bring bricks. The incident was witnessed by the complainant’s wife and children, who informed them about the incident. When the complainant Dujram and Ramayan returned home and reached the spot, they found Bhaduwa Ram lying unconscious. Upon seeing them, the accused persons, who were still present and armed with a sickle and sticks, abused them in filthy language, threatened to kill them and also assaulted both Dujram and Ramayan. As a result, Dujram sustained injuries on his left hand and right arm, while Ramayan suffered injuries on his right hand, right arm, right leg, and below the knee. It is further alleged that the complainant, his brother, and family members intervened in an attempt to rescue Bhaduwa Ram. The occurrence is stated to have been witnessed by the complainant’s wife, her children, and nearby neighbours. The incident was reported by Dujram at Police Station Lormi. The injured

¶19

3

¶20

persons Bhaduwa Ram, Dujram, and Ramayan, were sent for medical examination. Considering the serious condition of Bhaduwa Ram, he was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for further treatment. However, he succumbed to his injuries on 06.05.2006 during the course of treatment. The prosecution after completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate , who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused having abjured guilt was subjected to trial.

¶21

In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses to prove its case against the appellant. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded his innocence and false implication in this case.

¶22

The learned trial Court, after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of the case. The learned Trial Court failed to consider that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and learned trial Court has grossly erred in holding the appellant guilty under Section 304-II of IPC.

¶24

4

¶25

Learned trial Court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in accordance with the established principles of law relating to appreciation of evidence, the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures, learned trial Court has not appreciated the statement of doctor. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the ingredients of Section 304-II of IPC are not proved, therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶26

Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant is proper, then, considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2007, the appellant is now aged more than 35 years; the appellant remained in jail for about 18 months and he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail, he is facing the lis since 2007 i.e. for about more than 19 years and therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶27

In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Mahesh vs. State of M.P. and another connected case, as decided in CRA No. 321 of 2005.

¶28

Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. So, there is no scope for interference by

¶29

5

¶30

this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

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

¶32

It is evident from record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the appellant and other co-accused persons for offence under Section Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused of the said charges and convicted the present appellant for offence under Section 304-II of IPC.

¶33

PW-1, Ramayan Prasad Sahu, deposed that on the day of the incident, while his father- Bhaduwa Ram, was engaged in work in the agricultural field, the accused persons arrived at the spot and the accused not only used filthy and abusive language towards him, but also physically assaulted him.

¶34

PW-2, Anand Bai, and PW-4, Ku. Asha, both ocular witnesses to the alleged incident, have categorically stated against the accused/ appellant and remained firm in their cross-examination.

¶35

PW-7, Dr. D. Lal, examined the injured Bhaduwa Ram Sahu on 03.05.2006. During the examination, he found that the patient had sustained five injuries. Considering the serious nature of the injuries, he referred Bhaduwa Ram Sahu to CIMS Hospital for better treatment. He gave his report vide Ex. P/7.

¶36

PW-12, Dr. S. B. Kujur, who was posted as a Medical Officer at CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, treated the injured Bhaduwa Ram from 03.05.2006 to 06.05.2006. Bed head Ticket is Ex. P/18.

¶37

6

¶38

PW-16, Dr. Vijay Kumar Verma, conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased- Bhaduwa Ram Sahu. He opined that the cause of death was head injury and gave his report vide Ex. P/19-A.

¶39

Learned trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence of all the witnesses, including medical evidence rightly altered the Section 302 of the appellant to 304-II of IPC. Thus, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality or irregularity in the findings as recorded by learned Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant. So, the conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed.

¶40

As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2006 and this appeal is pending since 2007. The appellant is now aged more than 35 years; and he remained in jail for about 18 months, he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail, he is facing the lis since 2007 i.e. for about more than 19 years and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶41

Ex consequenti , the appeal is partly allowed . Conviction of the appellant under the aforementioned section is affirmed and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent.

¶42

The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a

¶43

7

¶44

period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear

¶45

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶46

The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)

JUDGE

AMIT PATEL

Ram Milan Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Milan Sahu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Johat Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Sagar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Shekhar Bharti and Anr. Vs State Of C.g.

Santu @ Satendra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanat @ Santan and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Agrawal Vs Shri Saurabh Kumar