Panchram vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1078 OF 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.6116 of 2019)

PANCHRAM ...Appellant Versus

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR. …Respondents

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

Leave granted.

1. The accused has filed the present appeal

challenging his conviction and sentence. The impugned

judgment of the High Court dated 11.10.2018 is under

appeal vide which judgment and order of sentence dated

30.05.2000 passed by the Trial Court was upheld. The

conviction and sentence of the appellant is as under:

Section Sentence 341 IPC RI 1 month

506 B RI 6 months Signature Not Verified IPC Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.04.11

307 IPC RI 5 years and fine of ₹1,500/-, in default of payment to further 17:43:57 IST Reason:

undergo RI 1 year.

Page 1 of 6 S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6116/2019

2. The case of the prosecution as is evident from the

F.I.R. is that on 04.05.1999 at about 7.15 P.M. when the

complainant Salikram was returning back from pond after

taking bath, near the barn of Prasanna Kumar, the appellant

stopped him, abused and threatened him to kill. Rajkumar

alias Munna (PW 6) was also with him. The appellant

caused injuries on the left side of his abdomen and left

thigh with scissors. The appellant had doubted that the

injured had illicit relations with his wife.

3. The argument raised by the learned counsel for

the appellant is that it is a case of sudden fight with no

intention of the appellant to cause any injuries to the

complainant. The injuries are also not serious which could

cause death. There is no weapon as such used. The

allegation is only scissors was there. In fact, the appellant

was doing the work of tailoring. Many times, he just carries

the scissors. The fight was on account of the fact that the

complainant was having an evil eye on the wife of the

appellant. He had even admitted this fact in his cross-

Page 2 of 6 S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6116/2019

examination. In these circumstances, if there was sudden

fight, it cannot be said to a case in which mens rea is there.

He also referred to a document placed on record in the form

of a compromise deed dated 30.04.2019 between the

parties.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State

submitted that it is a case in which the appellant had

caused injuries to the complainant with a sharp-edged

weapon on the vital part of the body. Hence, his conviction

and sentence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) cannot be faulted with.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the paper-book.

6. The incident in the case had taken place 23/24

years ago. The root cause, as per the stand of the

appellant is that the injured was having inappropriate

relations with his wife, is not a matter of dispute as the

injured in his cross-examination had admitted this fact. In

the complaint filed by the injured on the basis of which F.I.R.

Page 3 of 6 S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6116/2019

was registered, he stated that Rajkumar alias Munna (PW 6)

was accompanying the appellant when he caused injuries.

However, he was declared hostile. The weapon used is a

scissors which is not a normal weapon of offence in case

there is any intention to cause death. The appellant was

doing the work of a tailoring. As per the injury report, there

was a scratch below the neck, incised wound on the left

thigh and a small cut size 1 ½ cm x 1 cm x 5 cm below the

ribs.

7. In his statement, the injured appearing as PW-1

submitted that when Munna (PW 6) shouted for help,

Kantilal (PW 8) and Radheyshyam (PW 9) came there and

seeing them the accused ran away. However, Kantilal (PW

8) was declared hostile. The prosecution had produced

another witness Radhey Shyam (PW 7). He was also

declared hostile and did not support the prosecution

version. Even the scissors which was seized by the police is

small scissors which is used by tailors. With the aforesaid

evidence on record and the kind of weapon used, in our

view the offence will not fall within Section 307 I.P.C. From

Page 4 of 6 S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6116/2019

the reasons for fight 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 made out. The

conviction for other offences namely under Sections 341 IPC

and 506B IPC are sustained.

8. 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.

Page 5 of 6 S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6116/2019

9. The impugned judgments passed by the Courts

below are modified to the extent mentioned above and the

appeal is allowed.

….…………..………J. [Abhay S. Oka]

….……………..……J. [Rajesh Bindal]

New Delhi 11th April, 2023

Page 6 of 6