2025:CGHC:56753 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 159 of 2022

1 - Seemanchal S/o Udiyo Vinayat, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village And P.S. Chhattarpur, District Ganjaam (Orissa). Presently R/o Haldibadi, No. 04, Amanala, P.S. Chirmiri, District Koriya Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Chirmiri, District Koriya Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate For Respondent / State : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board

21/11/2025

1. Appellant present in person before this Court along with his counsel in compliance of the order of bailable warrant dated 09.10.2025 passed by this Court. Appearance of the appellant is taken on record.

2. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally.

3. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant under Section

374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.12.2021 passed by the learned Second Upper Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh (henceforth referred to as ‘trial Court) in Sessions Case No.73/2016, whereby the appellant / accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months’ additional RI.

4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that, on 29.04.2016, when the appellant, the victim / complainant Pradeep Kumar and other co-accused persons namely Uttam Pradhan, Gouri Pradhan & Pintu Sawai had gone to attend a marriage ceremony, where appellant and other co-accused persons abused the complainant Pradeep Kumar and threatened to kill him. The appellant also assaulted him by means of sword with intention to kill him. Consequently, an FIR (Ex.P-3) was lodged against the appellant and other co-accused persons under Sections 294, 506-B, 323, 307, 34 of the IPC. After due investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 294, 506-B, 323, 307, 34 of the IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 was filed against the appellant and other three accused persons before the concerned JMFC. After committal and transfer, the case was heard by learned Upper Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya.

5. Charges under Sections 294, 506-II, 307/34 & 323/34 of the IPC were framed against appellant and three other accused persons namely; Uttam Pradhan, Gouri Pradhan & Pintu Sawai, who abjured their guilt and entered into appearance.

6. In order to prove the guilt of appellant and other three accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents, statements of the appellant and other three accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which, they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution claiming themselves to be innocent and falsely implicated. No defence witness has been examined in support of the accused persons.

7. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial Court vide judgment dated 31.12.2021 acquitted the appellant Seemanchal and other co-accused persons namely; Uttam Pradhan, Gouri Pradhan & Pintu Sawai of the charges under Sections 294, 506-II, 307/34 & 323/34 of the IPC. However, the trial Curt has convicted the appellant Seemanchal only for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC instead of Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred instant appeal.

8. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that he does not want to press this appeal as regards to the conviction part of the impugned judgment, rather he would confine