Advocates:
['PRASHANT TIWARI', 'AVINASH K MISHRA', 'SUSHANT TIWARI', 'A G', '', 'RAKESH KUMAR THAKUR COMPLAINANT']

1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CR.A. No. 140 of 2005

Raj Kumar Satnami, aged about 32 years, S/o. Late Shri Sitabiram,

Occupation – Agriculturist/Labourer, R/o. Village – Doma, Chowki –

Bhakhara, P.S. - Kurud, District – Dhamtari (C.G.)

---- Appellant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh.

-----Respondent

For Appellant

: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate.

For Respondent/State

: Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh Samant, Panel Lawyer.

For Complainant

: Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice

Parth Prateem Sahu

Order On Board

14.09.2022

1.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and

sentence dated 03.02.2005, passed in Sessions Trial No. 413 of

2002, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari,

District – Dhamtari convicted appellant for offence under Section

307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in

default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month

imprisonment.

2

2.

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 11.04.2002

at about 7.30 PM on account of some old property dispute,

appellant along with one another accused persons with intent to

commit murder of injured – Bunela Ram assaulted him and

caused injuries on his person by means of axe and knife. When

Gulal Satnami tried to intervene, he was also assaulted due to

which he suffered simple injuries. The incident was reported to

concerned Police Station based upon which, FIR was registered

for commission of offence defined under Section 307, 34 of I.P.C.

against appellant and one another accused person. Police after

completion of investigation filed charge-sheet, before Court of

competent jurisdiction.

3.

Learned trial Court based on material available in the final report/

charge-sheet, framed charges under Section 307 in alternate

307/34, 323, 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant

denied the charges and prayed for trial. During the course of trial,

prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses namely Bunela

Ram (P.W.-1), Gulal (P.W.-2), Aasani Bai (P.W.-3), Horilal Sahu

(P.W.-4), Rath Ram Patel (P.W.-5), Siddharth Das (P.W.-6),

Laxminarayan (P.W.-7), Shatrughan Lal (P.W.-8), Shyamlal Sahu

(P.W.-9), Bhisham Lal (P.W.-10), Chandrahas Sonwani (P.W.-

11), Nand Kumar (P.W.-12), Yogendra Kumar (P.W.13), Sunil

Kumar (P.W.-14), K.R. Bhoi (P.W.15) and Dr. J.S. Khalsa

(P.W.16) and exhibited 18 documents including Dehati Nalishi

(Ex.P-1), F.I.R. (Ex.P-1A), Crime Details Form (Ex.P-2), Seizure

memo (Ex.P-3, & Ex.P-7), Dying declaration (Ex.P-4), Application

3

to Sub-Divisional Officer for recording dying declaration (Ex.P-5)

Spot Map (Ex.P-6), Statement of Bhisham Lal (Ex.P.-8),

Statement of Chandrahas Sonwani (Ex.P-9), application for FSL

examination (Ex.P-10), application for examination of seized

articles (Ex.P-10A), copy of receipt (Ex.P-11), application for

examination of cloths of victim (Ex.P-11A), medical examination

report of Bunela Ram (Ex.P-12), query report of articles seized

(Ex.P-13), query report of articles seized (Ex.P-14). The appellant

was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied all the

incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence

and false implication. After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court

convicted appellant for commission of offences and sentenced

him as mentioned here-in-above.

4.

Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of appellant would submit that appellant and complainant are

close relative and there was property dispute between them due

to which the incident occurred. He submits that during the

pendency of this appeal, son of complainant/injured and

appellant have entered into compromise and have filed joint

application under Section 320 (5) of Cr.P.C. for compounding of

offence. He also contended that appellant has already served two

years of substanti