2026:CGHC:1935 D si i g g n it e a d l l b y y NAFR AVINASH AVINASHSHARMA SHARMA Date:

2026.01.16

18:53:59 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR +0530 CRA No. 526 of 2008 Chhakkulal S/o Sahdev Gond, Aged about 46 years, R/o village Dhanaura, PS Marvahi Distt. Bilaspur C.G.

... Appellant.

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through PS Marvahi, District Bilaspur.

..State/Respondent.

For Appellant : Shri BP Singh, Advocate.

For State/Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board

13/01/2026

1. This Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in Sessions Case No.39/2007, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional RI for 3 months.

2. Case of prosecution is that Complainant namely Samelal Gond is the permanent resident of village Dhanaura, Kirhatola, PS Marvahi, where he resides along with his family members. The appellant is his younger brother and the family partition had took place 20 years ago between them but there was some dispute regarding partition of house. On 3.6.2007 regarding the same dispute, a panchayat was held in front of the house of the accused/appellant. The meeting was held at a Chabutra prepared for sitting. The village Sarpanch Amin Singh, Kotwar Subelal and other persons were sitting there then the appellant brought a Gun from his house and fired on the injured Samelal Gond, due to which, the Complainant received injuries from the bullet of the Gun on both thighs. The complainant went to his house from where he was taken to the PS Marvahi where FIR was lodged.

3. Statement of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/14 to prove its case against the appellant.

5. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded in which, he pleaded innocence and false implication and exhibited one document vide Ex.D/1.

6. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment.

7. 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 307 of IPC. Learned trial Court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in accordance with the established principles of law relating to appreciation of evidence and thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed in the judgment dated 20.04.1981 passed in the matter of Kundan Singh vs. State of Punjab {(1982) 3 SCC 213} by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant 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 2007; this appeal is pending since 2008; the appellant was aged about 46 years at the time of filing of this Appeal; the appellant has remained in jail for 5 months and 13 days and he did not misuse the liberty while on bail; he is facing the lis since 2008 i.e. for about 17 years and therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone