The court ruled that conviction under Section 307 IPC was inappropriate due to lack of intent to kill, altering it to Section 325 IPC for grievous injury.

Judgment on Board

24/03/2025

1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2007 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ramanujganj, District-Sarguja (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 111/2005 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on the date of the incident i.e. 03.08.2004 at about 7:00 am, complainant Mahabir (PW-3) along with his brothers namely Inrajeet (PW-5) and Ramlal (PW-4) working in the field, that time, both the appellants armed with clubs came to the field called bad and vulgar names and further prevented them from ploughing the filed to which they claimed to be their own land. After a hot altercation, both the appellants assaulted the complainant and both brothers with the means of clubs. Indrajeet was assaulted by them causing grievous hurt and endangering his life. On the basis of complaint, FIR was lodged and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed.

3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. The statements of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication in the matter.

4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2007, the learned Judge has acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 294 of IPC . However, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that no case is made out against the appellant for the offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC at most the case is made out under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code as the appellants had no intention of causing the death of Indrajeet and the appellants assaulted the victim by means of a stick. Therefore, the conviction under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code for the injury of injured is not appropriate. He next submits that there was a dispute between the parties regarding land and on the report of the appellants, a case was also filed against the complainant party in which they were also convicted. He further submits that the appellants have already remained in jail for about 42 days. Therefore, the conviction under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code may be altered/converted to section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants may sentenced to the period already undergone by them. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Kishan and State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh and Others , reported in AIR 1988 SC 2127 .

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.

8. Dr. Govind Singh (PW-8) has stated that he conducted medical examination of the injured Indrajeet (PW-5) on 03.08.2004 and gave a report vide Ex.P-8. According to which he was in an unconscious state, there was a swelling of 4x4 cm in the middle of the back of his head and a swelling of 2x2 cm on the forehead. There was an abrasion of 4x1 cm around the fifth rib on the right side of the chest.