Section 324 IPC sentence reduced to period undergone considering simple injury and absence of criminal antecedents.

On 01.11.2016, the complainant, Upen Sai, was allegedly assaulted by the appellant from behind using a tangi (axe) while returning from his agricultural field

The complainant sustained a head injury and further blows to his limbs with the wooden handle of the weapon

An FIR was registered under Section 307 of the IPC (Attempt to Murder)

Medical examination revealed a single incised wound on the left parietal region, which was opined to be simple in nature

By judgment dated 25.11.2017, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, found that the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC were not met due to the absence of intent to kill and instead convicted the appellant under Section 324 IPC, sentencing him to one year of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) and a fine of ₹100

The appellant challenged the conviction but subsequently confined the prayer to a reduction of the sentence

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the IPC for voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon was legally sound

2. Whether the sentence awarded to the appellant should be reduced to the period already undergone (4 months and 14 days) in light of the circumstances and lack of criminal antecedents

The court primarily applied Section 324 of the IPC, which pertains to voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means

It distinguished the offense from Section 307 of the IPC, emphasizing that the latter requires a specific "intention or knowledge" to cause death, which was absent here given the nature of the injuries and lack of motive

Regarding sentencing, the court exercised judicial discretion based on the principles of proportionality, referencing Coordinate Bench precedents such as Ajay Kumar Sarthi v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 243 of 2022) and Pritam Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 903 of 2015), where sentences were reduced to the period already served when no criminal history existed and significant time had elapsed since the incident

The Court scrutinized the evidence of the medical expert (PW-7), which confirmed that the injury was simple and that no internal head injuries were detected via CT scan

It noted that while the prosecution established the assault through the testimony of Seema Ekka (PW-4), several other witnesses provided hearsay or unreliable evidence

The Court agreed with the trial court that the lack of prior enmity and the infliction of only a single blow negated the intent required for a conviction under Section 307 IPC

The Court reasoned that after nearly a decade since the incident, sending the appellant back to jail for the remainder of the one-year sentence would serve no "fruitful purpose"

It noted the appellant had no prior criminal record, was approximately 20 years old at the time of the incident, and had been facing trial/appeal since 2017

The fine of ₹100 and its default stipulation remained intact

The appeal was partly allowed

The court directed that the appellant’s bail bonds remain operative for six months in accordance with Section 481 of the BNSS