Digitally signed by ALLENA ALLENA ANNAJEE ANNAJEERAO RAO Date:

2026.04.13 17:16:51 +0530

2026:CGHC:16495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1956 of 2025 Lalchand Ram @ Ramdev Baba S/o Nadhiya Ram Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Devri, P.S. Dhourpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ..

Respondent For the appellant : Smt. Uma Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

Order on Board

09.04.2026

1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by appellant against the judgment dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned 2^nd Addl. Sessions Judge Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G) in Sessions Case No.94/2015 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction : Sentence U/s 307 of IPC RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month.

U/s 25 (1-b)(b) of RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- in the Arms Act default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month.

Sentences have been directed to run concurrently

2. However, the trial Court after considering the evidence acquitted the appellant from offence u/s 294 and 506 IPC.

3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the informant Urmila Toppo (P.W.2) had lodged a report in Shankargarh Police station on 25.07.2015 that in the morning of 22.7.2015 appellant called her sister’s son Pankaj (injured) and said that the accused is in Jarang Path cave and asked to bring the puja material like coconut and incense sticks. The victim Pankaj went to Jarang-path cave with pooja material on his motorcycle and called out accused. A short while later, accused Lalchand came out of the cave with a sword and hit him on the head from behind with the sword. When Pankaj tried to stop the assault with his left hand, the club in his hand got cut off and he got injuries on his left arm and back of his head. Hearing the voices of shepherds, the accused released the injured Pankaj. Pankaj then went to Tejnarayan Yadav and Balmiki Yadav, who were ploughing the field, and asked them to make a call to Lalchand’s house on their mobile phones. Tejnarayan made the call and took the injured to Dhourpur Hospital and then to the District Hospital for treatment. On that report, the crime was registered and during investigation the statements of injured witnesses were recorded and after complying with the procedural formalities, the charge sheet was filed.

4. The prosecution has in all examined 9 witnesses and exhibited above 13 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC, abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. After conclusion of trial and on appreciation of evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the incident dates back to the year 2015 and the appellant is suffering trauma of trial for long and further as the accused has spent in jail for more than 1 year 10 months and 6 days; at present he is in jail and as stated by learned State Counsel there are no criminal antecedents against him, therefore, at this stage, the sentence awarded to the appellant u/s 307 and section 25(1-b)(b) of Arms Act may be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused.

6. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. He submits that the medical report Ex. P-9A would show that the injuries sustained by the injured are grievous in nature.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also pe