Digitally signed by BHOLA B N H AT O H LA NATH KHATAI KHATAI D 20 a 2 te 6 : .01.20

14:41:10 +0530

2026:CGHC:2760 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 886 of 2025

1.Tulsi Gawde S/o Pandru Gawde Aged About 34 Years R/o Turangur Chandrupara, P.S. Burgum, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh

2.Pandru Gawde S/o Budhru Gawde Aged About 60 Years R/o Turangur, Chandrupara P.S. Burgum, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of Police Station Burgum District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Bahrani, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswa l Judgment On Board

16.01.2026

1. This criminal appeal under Section 415 (2) of the BNSS, 2023 has been preferred against the judgment dated 09.04.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar place at Jagdalpur (CG) in S.T. No.58/2022, by which, both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:

sentenced as under:

sentenced as under:

sentenced as under:

sentenced as under:

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.05.2022, at about 6:05 a.m., the appellants were cutting/removing the boundary of a field belonging to injured Buttu Thakur. When the injured objected, appellant No.1 Tulsi Gawde assaulted him with the sharp edge of an axe on his head intending to kill him while appellant No.2 Pandru Gawde was saying to kill the injured and bury him. Due to the assault, Buttu Thakur got injured and he was taken to CHC, Bade Kilepal for medical treatment. The matter was reported to the Police Station Burgum, District Bastar (CG) by complainant Mannuram Thakur (PW-2) who is the brother of the injured, pursuant to which FIR Ex.3 was registered against the appellants. After completion of investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C.

3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. In defence, 2 witnesses have been examined by the appellants. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, convicted and sentenced both the appellants for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellants questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that according to the testimony of Dr. D. P. Bhardwaj (PW-7) and the MLC report (Ex.P-9), the injured, Buttu Thakur (PW-1), sustained only two incised wounds to the frontal and mid-regions of the head. Although the doctor described the bony incised injury as severe nature, he explicitly stated that a definitive opinion could only be given after reviewing X-ray or CT scan reports. But, no such X-ray or CT scan was conducted to confirm the actual nature of injuries suffered by the injured. He submits that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause death. The injured himself has stated that the appellants assaulted him on account of a sudden dispute over cutting the boundary of his filed. The allegation of assault is only against appellant No.1 and there is no allegation of assault against appellant No.2. Considering all these facts, the case of the appellants would not fall under Section 307 of IPC as there was no attempt to murder the injured. He submits that if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, at best, the offence under Section 324 of IPC would be made out and, therefore, the conviction of appellants under Section 307 of I.P.C. may be altered/converted to Section 324 of I.P.C. and the sentence imposed upon them b