##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:20833

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No.107 of 2008

1 - Naresh Kumar, S/o Mehtu Sahu, aged 27 years, R/o Village

Parsadbod, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.)

2 - Pappu, alias Pawan Kumar, S/o Kapil Sahu, aged 19 years, R/o

Village Parsabod, Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.)

Appellant (s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.O. Dhamdha, Durg, C.G.

Respondent(s)

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, PL

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Judgment on Board

05/05/2026

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 28.12.2007 passed by

the learned 7^th Additional Session Judge (FTC), Durg (C.G.) in

Session Trial No.275/2005, whereby the appellants have been

Digitally convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI

signed

by R

NIRALA

2

for 7 years with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.09.2005, the

complainant Sudhir Tamrakar was assaulted by the appellants

when he was on the way to his home on a motorcycle, as a result

of which he sustained severe injuries, thereafter he was admitted

to hospital and report was lodged against the appellants.

Thereafter a case was registered against the accused and they

were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet

was filed against the appellants before the Magistrate concerned.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment

passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material

available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate

the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider

omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution

witnesses. The complainants did not receive any grievous

injuries and only received simple injuries despite that the

appellants have been convicted under Section 307 of IPC.

Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

Alternatively,

He submits that the incident took place in the year 2005, this

appeal is pending since 2008, presently the appellants are aged

more than 40 years and they remained in jail for about 15 months

and have never misused the liberty granted by this Court,

therefore, the appellants may be sentenced to the period already

undergone by them.

3

4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned

judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely

appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly

convicted and sentenced the appellants, as such no interference

is called for. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the

learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 307 of IPC

against all the appellants. After appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial

Court convicted the appellants under Section 307 of IPC, as

mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

7. As per prosecution, both the accused persons assaulted the

complainant Sudhir Tamrakar by a club, as a result of which he

sustained grievous injuries which were dangerous to their life.

8. PW-2 Sudhir Tamrakar the complainant stated that on the date of

incident, when he was returning to his shop from the house of

Balwant, the accused persons assaulted him by club, as a result

of which he sustained injuries on his head, hands, legs, back,

eyes and ear. In his cross-examination, he remained firm.

9. PW-1 Baldau, PW-3 Jagatram Maihar, PW-4 Thailendra Kumar

and PW-5 Balwant have all stated that on the date of incident,

the appellants assaulted the complainant Sudhir Tamrakar.

4

10. Dr. S. K. Jamgade (PW-6) examined the complainant Sudhir

Tamrakar and found 14 injuries on his head and forehead and

abrasion and swelling was also found. He immediately referred

the complainant to District Hospital. He g