The Chhattisgarh High Court, upheld convictions in a violent 2020 assault at Bhatapara but substantially reduced the jail sentences imposed by the trial court, directing the immediate release of one accused and commuting the other’s remaining term to the time already served. The judgment, authored by Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, stems from Criminal Revision Appeal No. 1305 of 2022 arising out of Sessions Case No. H-12/2020.
The case concerns an incident in 2020 in which the complainant, Suresh Kumar Gendre, was attacked after objecting to nearby individuals smoking ganja. The trial court convicted both appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for attempt to murder and common intention, and sentenced each to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a small fine. The High Court, after reviewing witness testimony, medical evidence and the role played by each accused, affirmed the convictions but altered the sentences.
On the facts, the court found that appellant No. 1, Sonu alias Laxman Chelak, had directly assaulted the victim with a sword and that the medical records supported at least one sword injury to the victim’s lower back. Appellant No. 1 had been in custody since his arrest on September 12, 2020, and had undergone five years and 24 days of incarceration. Taking the totality of circumstances into account, the High Court held that no useful purpose would be served by ordering further imprisonment and directed that Sonu be released forthwith, subject to compliance with procedural requirements under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provided he is not wanted in any other case.
Appellant No. 2, Shekhar Chelak (also known as Dainy), was found to have a more limited role. Witnesses, including the victim’s brother, described Shekhar’s participation as confined to assault by hands and fists, and no weapon or incriminating article was seized from him. Shekhar had spent 1 year and 27 days in custody during trial and later obtained bail; the High Court reduced his remaining sentence so that his punishment equates to the period already served. The court emphasized that while Section 34 IPC imputes joint liability, sentencing may differ according to individual culpability.
The High Court preserved the monetary fines imposed by the trial court. It also directed that the trial court record and the decision be returned for compliance and any necessary action. For appellant No. 2, who is already on bail, the court ordered that his bail bonds remain in force for six months in view of Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
This decision illustrates the court’s measured approach to sentencing where individual roles and time already undergone in custody are carefully weighed against the gravity of the offense. The conviction for attempt to murder was maintained, but the relief on sentence reflects the High Court’s view that continuing incarceration in these particular circumstances would not advance the ends of justice.
Citation : 2025 Local Law (CG) 834
Case Details : CRA No. 1305 of 2022, Sonu and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh.
Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Pragalbha Sharma, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Acts/Rules/Orders: Arms Act 1959 – Section 25, Arms Act 1959 – Section 27; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (bnss) – Section 481; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [repealed] – Section 313; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [repealed] – Section 374(2); Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) [repealed] – Section 294; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) [repealed] – Section 307; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) [repealed] – Section 34; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) [repealed] – Section 506 Cases
Referred: Krishnamurthy and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka.
