Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjay Bhoi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 January, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:5674
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 516 of 2023
Sanjay Bhoi S/o Ramkumar Bhoi Aged About 19 Years R/o Bajrang
Nagar, P.S. Azad Chowk Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
(In Jail)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Azad Chowk, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. CR Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Judgment On Board
30/01/2025
The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2023 passed by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in ST No.245/2021 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:
2
Conviction Sentence Under Section 307 of Indian Penal RI for 07 years, fine of Rs.2000/-, Code. in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 01 year.
Under Section 25(1)(b)(B) of the RI for 03 years, fine of Rs.2000/-, Arms Act. in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 06 months.
Under Section 27(1) of the Arms RI for 05 years, fine of Rs.2000/-, Act. in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 01 year.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.3.2021 at around 9.30 pm Deepak Lonhare was standing near Gupta Shop, Bajrang Nagar. At that time, the accused/appellant demeaned Bidi from him. On his refusal, the accused raised dispute and started abusing him. However, the people present there scolded the accused and drove him away. At around 11.30 pm the accused came to the house of Deepak Lonhare and told him that his mother and father want to meet him. Thereupon, Deepak along with his sister Manju and Roshni went with the accused. However, on the way on account of some old incidents the accused started filthily abusing Deepak and on his objection, he threatened him of life and then assaulted with a knife like weapon on left side of his stomach. Complainant Roshan Lonhare, brother of 3 Deepak Lonhare, admitted Deepak to Medical College Hospital, Raipur for treatment. On his report, offence under Sections 294, 506, 323 of IPC was registered against the accused vide FIR of Ex.P/2.
03. During investigation, stop maps Ex.P/3 & P/4 were prepared, the injured was got medically examined in Dr. Bheemram Ambedkar Memorial Hospital vide Ex.P/5; on the memorandum of accused (Ex.P/10), weapon of offence knife was seized vide Ex.P/11; the clothes worn by the injured at the time of incident were seized vide Ex.P/1; statements of the witnesses were recorded; the seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL and report Ex.P/19 was obtained therefrom. After completing the whole investigation, charge sheet under Sections 294, 506, 323, 326 and 307 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act was filed against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur.
04. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 307 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, to which the accused abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by him in defence.
4
05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.
06. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. The appellant has not assaulted on the injured. In fact, he is a friend of the injured and they are resident of the same locality. However, on account of some trivial dispute between them over lighting of cigarette, the complainant lodged a false report against him. There are material contradiction and omission in the statements of the witnesses. The evidence of Roshani Lonhare (PW-4) and Manju Kamde (PW-4) is not at all reliable. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the necessary ingredients for attracting the offence under Section 307 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act are extremely missing in this case. He further submits that all the important witnesses in this case are interested witnesses and as such, their reliability is doubtful but the learned trial Court did not consider this aspect. The prosecution has failed to prove its case on the basis of evidence adduced by it beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges by giving him benefit of doubt.
Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the victim in light of 5 medical evidence, no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the appellant and at the most, he can be held guilty under Section 326 of IPC. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the incident which took place in the year 2021, he has no criminal antecedents, he is in jail for the last 2 years and 9 months, he was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty, his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.
08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
09. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 307 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court while acquitting him of the charges under Sections 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
6
10. PW-1 Deepak Lonhare states that on the date of incident at around 11-11.30 pm while he was at his home, the accused came to his home and told him that his father is calling him (Deepak). Thereupon he along with his brother Roshan Lonhare went to the house of the accused. However, while he was talking with the father of the accused, at that time the accused assaulted with knife on his stomach. He went to police station with his brother and lodged report and that police admitted him to Medical College Hospital, Raipur where he remained for 10 days. PW-2 Roshan Lonhare has also supported the statement of the injured. Defence could not elicit anything from them to make their evidence untrustworthy or doubtful.
11. PW-3 Dr. Dev Kumar Tandon medically examined injured Deepak and found one stab injury on his left side pelvic region and referred him to surgery department for further treatment vide medical report Ex.P/5. In his query report (Ex.P/6), after examining the weapon of offence knife he opined that the injury sustained by the victim could be caused by this weapon and that the said injury could be grievous in nature. He states that again he was asked by the police whether the injury suffered by the victim is dangerous to life, to which he opined that it is not fatal but it was dangerous to life for want of timely medical treatment vide Ex.P/8.
12. PW-7 Dr. Shailendra Pushpkar states that he operated upon the injured. He admits that the injured was admitted in hospital on 7 31.3.2021 and discharged on 7.4.2021. The bedhead ticket is Ex.P/9. However, he did not opine about nature of injury.
13. It has been observed by Division Bench of this Court in para 19 of its judgment in the matter of Pareshwar Satnami Vs. State of CG passed in CRA No.188 of 2012 as under:-
"19. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jai Narain Mishra and others Vs. State of Bihar where four to five person attacked a man with deadly weapons but causing only three simple and one grievous hurt to the injured by farsa, their Lordships held that offence under 326 of IPC would be made out and held as under in paragraph 11 of the report:-
"11. Taking the case of appellant Suraj Mishra, we find that he has been convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. According to the evidence Suraj was responsible for the chest injury which is described by Dr. Mishra P.W. 6 as a penetrating wound 1½" x 1½" x chest wall deep (wound not probed) on the side of the right side of the chest. Margins were clean cut. Suraj, according to the evidence, had thrust a bhala into the chest when Shyamdutt had fallen as a result of the blow given by Mandeo with the farsa on his head. According to the Doctor the wound in the chest was of a grievous nature as the patient developed surgical emphysema on the right side of the chest. There was profuse bleeding and, according to the Medical Officer the condition of the patient at the time of the admission was low and serious and the injury was dangerous to life. Out of the four injuries which the Medical Officer noted, this injury was of a grievous nature while the other three injuries were simple in nature. Where four or five persons attack a man with deadly weapons it may well be presumed that the intention is to cause death. In the present case, however, three injuries are of a simple nature though deadly weapons were used and the fourth injury 8 caused by Suraj, though endangering life could not be deemed to be an injury which would have necessarily caused death but for timely medical aid. The benefit of doubt must, therefore, be given to Suraj with regard to the injury intended to be caused and, in our opinion, the offence is not one under Section 307, I.P.C., but Section 326, I.P.C. His conviction, therefore, under Section 307, I.P.C. is set aside and we convict him under Section 326, I.P.C. His sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment will have to be reduced accordingly to 3 years rigorous imprisonment."
14. It has been observed by this Court in the matter of Rajesh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No.09/2020 in paras 21 & 22 of its judgment, as under.
"21. Supreme Court in the matter of Neelam (supra), held in para 8, which reads thus:-
"8. A reading of the above would indicate that though the general condition of the patient was very bad yet there is no categoric statement in the medical certificate issued by Dr. S.M. Sehgal that the injuries were in fact dangerous to life. We are unable to fathom as to whether this was a deliberate omission or an oversight but whatsoever it may be the benefit must accrue to the accused. We have also gone through the evidence of Dr. S.M. Sehgal and opined that he had admitted that he had not mentioned that the injury was dangerous to the life as he did not think it necessary to do so."
22. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances case, the nature and number of injuries coupled with the medical and further considering the fact that there is nothing in the medical report of four 9 docotrs that injures sustained by the injured were fatal to life, it would not be safe to hold that the appellant cause injury to injured Narendra Majumdar (PW/5) in an attempt to commit his murder. However, the nature and number of injuries caused and the weapon used for causing such injury, it can safely be said that the accused/appellant had caused grievous injuries to the injured with dangerous weapon iron rod making him liable to be convicted under Section 326 IPC."
15. In the light of above judgments, considering the oral and medical evidence on record, the nature and extent of injury suffered by the victim, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove offence under Section 307 of IPC against the accused/appellant and at best, the act committed by the appellant makes him liable for conviction under Section 326 of IPC.
16. As regards offence under the Arms Act, learned trial court found that the weapon of offence knife was seized from the accused, its total length is 12 inch including 7 inch blade and he assaulted with it on the stomach of the victim. Hence he was illegally possessing it in violation of Section 4 of the Arms Act and held him guilty under Sections 25(1)(b)(B) and 27(1) of the Arms Act.
17. Sections 5 and 27 of the Arms Act read as under:
"5. Licence for manufacture, sale, etc., of arms and 10 ammunition.-[(1)] No person shall-
(a) 2[use, manufacture), sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or prove, or
(b) expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any firearms or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
3[*] [(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), a person may, without holding a licence in this behalf, sell or transfer any arms or ammunition which he lawfully possesses for his own private use to another person who is entitled by virtue of this Act, or any other law for the time being in force to have, or is not prohibited by this Act or such other law from having in his possession such arms or ammunition:
Provided that no firearm or ammunition in respect of which a licence is required under section 3 and no arms in respect of which a licence is required under section 4 shall be sold or transferred by any person unless-
(a) he has informed in writing the district magistrate having jurisdiction or the officer in charge of the nearest police station of his intention to sell or transfer such firearms, ammunition or other arms and the name and address of the person to whom he intends to sell or transfer such firearms, 11 ammunition or the other arms, and
(b) a period of not less than forty-five days has expired after the giving of such information.] "27. Punishment for using arms, etc.-(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with death.]
18. The notification issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh dated 22nd November, 1974 reads as under:
नोटी फिके शन laor 22 uoacj 1974 dkMZ dz- 6312-6552 nks-lh- pwafd jkT; 'kklu dh jk; esa e-iz- jkT; esa fo|eku n'kkvksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, yksdfgr esa ;g vko';d] xkSj lehphu gS fd lkoZtfud LFkkuksa esa rst /kkj okys ,sls vL=ksa dk ftldk Iyku 6 bap ls vf/kd yack 2 bap ls vf/kd pkSM+k rFkk fLizaxnkj fdlh izdkj ds pkdqvks dk vtZu] dCtk vkSj ys vkuk tkuk fo;fu;fer fd;k tk;A 12 vr,o Hkkjr ljdkj x`g ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk th-,l-vkj-1309 fnukad 1 vDVwcj 1962 ds lkFk xfBr vk;q/k vf/kfu;e 1960 dzekad 64 lu 1959 dh /kkjk 4 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa ds iz;ksx ys ykus dk jkT; 'kklu ,rn }kjk ;g funsZ'k nsrk gS fd mDr /kkjk dk bl vf/klwpuk ess e/;izns'k jkT; esa izdk'ku gksus ds fnukad ls laiw.kZ e-iz- jkT; ls dsoy lkoZtfud LFkkuksa esa rst /kkjnkj okys ,sls vL=ksa dk ftldk iyd 6 bap ls vf/kd] vf/kd yack ;k 2 bap ls vf/kd pkSM+k gks rFkk fLizaxnkj fdlh Hkh vkdkj ds vtZu] dCtk ;k mUgsa ys tkus ds laca/k esa ykxw gksxhA e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj ,l-,l-lkmYys milfpo"
19. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid sections with the notification dated 22nd November, 1974 would make it clear that weapon of offence seized from the appellant in this case does not fall in the category of arms requiring licence and it did not meet the specifications for violation. Being so, conviction of the appellant under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act is not sustainable in law and is hereby set aside.
20. As regards sentence, considering the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2021, the appellant has no criminal antecedents, the age of the appellant; he was on bail during trial and nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that he ever misused the liberty so granted and he has remained in jail for more than 02 years and 09 months till date, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping him behind the bars any longer and and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
13
21. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. However, while maintaining his conviction under Section 25(1)(b)(B) of the Arms Act, his conviction under Section 307 of IPC is altered to Section 326 of IPC. His substantive jail sentence under these sections is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The fine imposed on him under Section 25(1)(b)(B) of the Arms Act with default sentence by the trial Court shall remain intact. He shall also pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 326 of IPC and in default suffer additional RI for six months. The fine amount already deposited by him shall be adjusted accordingly.
The appellant is reported to be in jail, therefore, he be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. However, in view of provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellant shall execute a bail bond for his appearance before the higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against this judgment and such bond shall be in force for a period of six months.
Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Digitally Judge MOHD signed by AKHTAR MOHD KHAN AKHTAR KHAN Khan