OM PRAKASH SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010455022025 2026:CGHC:45763
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2332 of 2025
Om Prakash Sahu S/o Bramhnand Sahu, Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No.
•
05, Basti Para, Khudmudi, P.S. Patan, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Patan,
•
District Durg (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from CIS Periphery)
For Appellant : Mr. DK Vishwakarma, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Vinod Tekam,GA and Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, PL.
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judgment on Board
29/10/2026
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under
Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(for short, ‘BNSS’), against the judgment of conviction and order

2
of sentence dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Upper
Sessions Judge, Patan, District Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.197/2024, whereby the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 307 of
Indian Penal Code (in
short, ‘IPC’)
Rigorous Imprisonment
for ten years and fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default of
payment of fine amount
to undergo additional
rigorous imprisonment
for one month
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.10.2023, at about
5:30 p.m., the complainant -Khemlal Vishwakarma was returning
home after work. When he reached near the old market chowk,
Jaitkham, situated in village Khudmudi, Police Station Patan,
District Durg, he saw his nephew, Khemanshu Vishwakarma,
aged about six years, playing in front of the old market chowk. At
that time, the appellant Omprakash Sahu, came there and,
questioning the child as to why he was playing there, caught hold
of him, abused him in filthy language, and threatened to kill him.
Thereafter, the appellant assaulted the child on his face with a
sharp-edged object, causing an injury to the upper portion of his
lip, from which blood started oozing. The injured child was taken
to the hospital for treatment. On the basis of the report lodged by
the complainant in this regard, an FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered
against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections

3
294, 506 and 323 of the IPC. During the course of investigation,
spot maps (Exs.P-2 and P-3) were prepared, the medical report of
the injured (Ex.P-3A) was obtained, and a sickle was recovered
from the appellant vide seizure memo (Ex.P-5). The appellant was
arrested. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet
was filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under
Sections 294, 506, 323 and 307 of the IPC.
3.
The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant
under Sections 307, 506-B and 294 of the IPC. Appellant denied
the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned
trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in
paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
5. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he
does not wish to press the present appeal insofar as the
conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is concerned and
confines his submissions to the quantum of sentence. He further
submits that, although the appellant assaulted the victim by
means of a sickle ( ), but the dispute arose over a trivial
हंसिया
issue. He further submits that the appellant has been in jail since
28.10.2023, i.e., the date of his arrest, and has undergone more
than three years of imprisonment. The appellant has no criminal
antecedents. Therefore, it is prayed that his jail sentence may be
reduced to the period already undergone by him.

4
6. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned
judgment and submits that the conviction and sentence awarded
to the appellant are justified, and the appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record, including the record of the trial Court.
8. Though learned counsel for the appellant is not pressing the
appeal against the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court,
this Court has examined the material available on record to the
extent necessary. As per the deposition of the victim (PW-3), the
appellant assaulted him by means of a sickle, due to which he
sustained injuries on his upper lip. The aforesaid facts are also
supported by the depositions of his uncle Khemlal Vishwakarma
(PW-2), and Arjun Singh Vishwakarma (PW-4). Khomlal
Vishwakarma (PW-1), the father of the victim, also saw the victim
in an injured condition at the hospital. Dr. Anurag Sonkar (PW-5),
the examining doctor, stated in his deposition that, upon
examining the victim on 10.10.2023, he found a lacerated wound
on the upper jaw. He further stated that two teeth of the victim
were broken. The sickle was also seized from the possession of
the appellant. Having considered the depositions of the aforesaid
witnesses and the material available on record, this Court finds
that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court convicting the
appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is based on
the evidence available on record and does not call for any

5
interference. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under
Section 307 of the IPC, as recorded by the learned trial Court, is
hereby affirmed.
9. So far as the sentence is concerned, having considered the
nature of the injuries sustained by the victim due to the assault by
the appellant, the other facts and circumstances of the case, and
the fact that the appellant has undergone more than three years
and one day of imprisonment, i.e., from 28.10.2023 till date,
against the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court, this
Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by
keeping the appellant in further detention to undergo the
remaining period of sentence, rather, the ends of justice would be
served if his jail sentence under the aforesaid section is reduced
to the period already undergone by him, i.e., from 28.10.2023 till
date. Ordered accordingly.
10. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed . The conviction
of the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC, as recorded by the
learned trial Court, is maintained. However, the jail sentence
imposed upon the appellant under the aforesaid section is reduced
to the period already undergone by him, i.e., from 28.10.2023 till
date. The fine amount, along with the default sentence imposed by
the learned trial Court, shall remain intact. The impugned judgment
stands modified to the above extent.
11. The appellant is reported to be in jail. Therefore, he be released
forthwith, if not required to be detained in connection with any

6
other case.
12. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS, the
appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of Form
No. 45 prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, for a
sum of Rs.25,000/- before the concerned trial Court, which shall
remain effective for a period of six months, along with an
undertaking that, in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition
against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on
receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
13. The record of the concerned trial Court, along with a copy of this
judgment, be sent back immediately to the trial Court, as well as to
the concerned Jail Superintendent, for information and necessary
compliance.
14. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Rukhsar