Chattisgarh High Court
Ramesh @ Belar Kumar Netam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 January, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:3427
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 69 of 2022
Ramesh @ Belar Kumar Netam S/o Kanwal Singh Netam aged about 37
years, R/o Village Behradih, Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband
(C.G.)
...Appellant
(In Jail)
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mainpur, District Gariyaband
(C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
20.01.2025
1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 arising out of a judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 24.03.2021 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband (C.G.) in Sessions Trial
No. 62/2019, wherein the appellant is convicted and sentenced as
under:-
2
Conviction Sentence
U/S 307 of IPC R.I. for 10 years with fine amount
of Rs. 1000/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo
additional S.I. for 01 year.
2. Brief facts of the case is that the accused Ramesh and the injured
Tijelal were having subsisting enmity between them and earlier
they had altercations regarding liquor drinking. On 12.06.2019, the
injured Tijelal came out of bath and was wiping himself and at that
time, he told the accused that you should bring home Sister-in-law,
to which the accused replied why do you care whether I bring her
or not and moreover, who are you to even speak regarding this
and thereby, the accused got enraged, went inside his house
bought bow and arrow with an intention to kill Tijelal, he shot an
arrow from his house to his middle brother Tijelal, who was
standing at courtyard and the arrow got stuck on his left side of
vest. The injured Tijelal went for seeking help from his family
members namely Ishwar Netam and Ramsingh Netam, to which
they came for helping him and admitted him at Government
Hospital, Mainpur and on being suggested by the Doctor of
Mainpur, he was taken immediately to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur.
Thereafter, on being informed by the complainant Roshan Netam
offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC was leveled against
him vide F.I.R Ex. P/15. The spot map of the place of the incident
was prepared in front of the witnesses vide Ex. P/16 and the
3
injured Tijelal was sent to Community Health Center Mainpur for
his medical examination after filing the medical examination form
vide Ex. P/10-A and his medical report is obtained vide Ex. P/10.
The memorandum statement of the accused/appellant was
recorded vide Ex. P/02 in front of the witnesses. Seizure of the
bow was made on the basis of the memorandum statement and its
seizure letter is Ex. P/03. During investigation, the accused was
found to have committed the crime and he was arrested as per
arrest warrant Ex. P/08 and regarding his custody they intimated
to his family members vide Ex. P/23. On being submitted by the
injured, his clothes were seized and its seizure is Ex. P/04. After
completion of the due and necessary investigation, the charge-
sheet was filed against the accused person/appellant before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband (C.G.) and the case was
later committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Gariyaband (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 62/2019 and the accused
person/appellant was put to trial for the offence punishable under
Section 307 of IPC, whereby the accused person/appellant
abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.
3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined
as many as 14 witnesses to prove its case against the accused
person/appellant. Statement of the appellant was recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all the incriminating
circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his innocence
and false implication in the case.
4
4. Learned trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence on record by the impugned judgment convicted the
accused/appellant under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him
as mentioned in the inaugural paragraph of this judgment. Hence,
this appeal filed by the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
judgment dated 24.03.2021 is contrary to law, facts and
circumstances of the case, therefore it is liable to be set aside.
The judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to the facts,
evidence and law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the
case. The finding given by the learned trial Court against the
appellant is perverse and contrary to evidence on record. The
learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant only on the
basis of assumption and presumption. The prosecution case is
dependent upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no eye
witness in relation to the said incident and no prosecution
witnesses have supported the prosecution story. So, the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
There are material contradiction and omission in the
statement/deposition of the prosecution witnesses. So, impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside. He further submits that it is clear
from the statement of both the Doctors that the offence under
Section 307 is not made out against the appellant and only offence
under Section 324 of IPC is made out against the appellant. The
learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the ingredients of
Section 307 of IPC, as the same is not proved, so the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set
aside.
Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes
to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellant under
Section 307 of IPC as imposed by the trial Court is just
and proper, considering the fact that the incident took
5
place in the year 2019, this appeal is pending since 2022,
The appellant is now aged more than 43 years; he has
remained in jail for more than 05 years, so in the interest
of justice the appellant may be sentenced to the period
already undergone by him.
6. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’be Apex Court’s
judgment dated 11.04.2023 passed in CRA No. 1078/2023 in the
case of Panchram versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 394.
7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State strongly opposes the
prayer of the appellant, supporting the impugned judgment
submits that the learned trial Court after minutely appreciating the
oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and
sentenced the appellant under Section 307 of IPC. So, there is no
scope for interference by this Court. This appeal is without any
merit and is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including the impugned judgment.
9. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial
Court has framed charges against the accused/appellant under
Section 307 of IPC. It is further clear from the charge and the
medical report that the injured Tijelal sustained injury on his left
side of vest.
10. Tijelal Netam (PW-06) stated that on the date of incident, he asked
the accused as to why he was not going to see his wife who got
her thumb injured. The accused/appellant shot him with bow and
arrow and the arrow pierced his vest. (PW-03) Dr. Sudhanshu
Patel, stated that he examined the injured Tijelal and found one
incised wound in his vest and nature of injury is grievous and he
6
referred him for District Hospital, Gariaband and he gave his report
vide Ex. P/10. On being asked by the query report, he answered
that had if not Tijelal immediately treated, he would have died. The
other Dr. Sandeep Chandarakar (PW-11) stated that on
13.06.2019 Tijelal was admitted in B.R. Ambedkar Hospital,
Raipur. He was operated and after treatment he was discharged
on 27.07.2019. He also opined that the injuries were grievous in
nature and had if not Tijelal immediately treated, he would have
died, the bedhead ticket is Ex. P/19. In his cross-examination he
admitted that operation and treatment was given by Dr. Priyansh
Pandey and Dr. Arvind Kumar, and he identified their signatures.
11. (PW-01) Ishwar Singh Netam, (PW-05) Ram Netam, (PW-07)
Roshan Netam & (PW-08) Shivlal Netam have stated that they
saw injuries of Tijelal and as per Tijelal the accused shot him by
arrow. The injured Tijelal remained firm in his cross-examination,
as such it is proved that on the date of incident the
accused/appellant shot Tijelal using arrow and, as such he
sustained injuries.
12. This Court in the matter of Panchram (supra) reported in CRA
No. 1078 of 2023 in the judgment dated 11.04.2023 held in
paragraphs 07 & 08 which reads as under:-
“07. With the aforesid evidence on record and the kind of
weapon used, in our view the offence will not fall within
Section 307 I.P.C. From the reasons for fights as are
emerging on record, it doesn’t seem to be pre-planned act. It,
at the most, can fall within the four corners of Section 326
IPC as a sharp-edged weapon was used. The injuries were
not caused with an intention to cause death and were not
sufficient to cause death. Hence, in our view the conviction of
the appellant with respect Section 307 IPC cannot be
sustained however the offence under Section 326 IPC is
7made out.
08. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out that the
appellant had already undergone actual sentence of 11
months and 24 days. Considering the fact that the incident
had taken place about 23/24 years ago, in our view the
sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be reduced
to the period already undergone. The amount of fine
imposed is sustained. In Case of non-deposit of fine, the
appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one
month.”
13. In the light of above judgment and in the present case also, by
looking to the statement of both the Doctors and medical report of
Tijelal, it is clear that Tijelal sustained injuries on his vest which is
not a vital part of the body and it is further clear that Doctors have
only supported that had if he not treated, he would have died. It is
also clear from the Bed Head Ticket that injured Tijelal was
admitted in hospital for more than 20 days. So, the ingredients of
offence under Section 307 is not proved against the appellant and
it is altered/converted into Section 326 of IPC.
14. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the
year 2019 and this appeal is pending since 2022. The appellant is
now aged more than 43 years; and he has remained in jail for
more than 05 years, therefore, his sentence under the aforesaid
section is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by
him.
15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of
the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence
imposed by the trial Court is reduced to the period already
undergone by him. However, the fine amount imposed by the trial
Court shall remain intact.
8
16. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining
conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of IPC, the sentence
imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
17. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent
back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and
necessary action.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
Uttej