A conviction for attempt to murder under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC was upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court. Still, the sentence imposed on a father–son duo was reduced from five years’ rigorous imprisonment to one year and six months, taking into account their lack of criminal antecedents and the period already spent in custody.
- Case Title: Rajkumar Dhruv & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
- Date of Judgment: 12 March 2026
- Case Number: CRA No. 1949 of 2025
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident that occurred on 2 June 2024 in Dhamtari district, Chhattisgarh. According to the prosecution, the complainant, Yuvraj Sahu, reported that his father, Askaran Sahu, had been attacked near Goura Chaura square at around 10:30 PM.
As per the complaint, Rajkumar Dhruv, allegedly under the influence of anger after being objected to for breaking a beer bottle and abusing in public, went home and returned with his son, Nishant Dhruv. The two allegedly carried weapons, a sharp knife and a broken beer bottle.
The prosecution alleged that the accused jointly attacked Askaran Sahu with the intention to kill, causing injuries on his abdomen and chest. The victim’s cries reportedly attracted neighbors who helped intervene and rescue him before the accused fled. The injured man was first taken to District Hospital, Dhamtari, and later shifted to a private hospital for treatment.
Following the complaint, police registered an FIR and, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused persons.
Trial Court Conviction
During the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced 33 documents to support its case.
The accused denied the allegations in their statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC, claiming false implication.
After examining the evidence, the trial court:
- Acquitted Rajkumar Dhruv of charges under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act
- Both accused were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC
The trial court imposed the following punishment:
- 5 years rigorous imprisonment
- Fine of ₹2,000 each
- An additional one-year RI in case of non-payment of the fine
Aggrieved by this judgment, the accused filed an appeal before the High Court.
Appeal Before the High Court
Before the High Court, counsel for the appellants did not challenge the conviction on merits. Instead, the appeal was confined only to the quantum of sentence.
The defence argued that:
- The appellants were father and son with family responsibilities.
- They had no criminal antecedents.
- They had already served about 1 year, 3 months, and 3 days in jail.
- The incident had occurred in 2024, and they had been facing litigation since then.
On these grounds, the appellants sought reduction of sentence to the period already undergone.
The State opposed the plea and supported the trial court judgment.
Medical Evidence Considered by the Court
The High Court examined the testimony of Dr. Sumit Gupta (PW-9), who medically examined the injured victim.
The doctor testified that the victim sustained:
- One 2 cm injury on the stomach region
- One 1 cm injury on the chest region
Both injuries were caused by a sharp object, according to the medical report.
The Court also considered the testimony of the injured witness, Askaran Sahu (PW-1), and complainant Yuvraj Sahu (PW-2), which corroborated the prosecution’s story.
Based on this evidence, the Court concluded that the involvement of the appellants in the attack was clearly established.
High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 307 IPC
Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal held that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence.
The High Court found no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s findings and therefore upheld the conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
The Court observed that the evidence of the injured witness, corroborated by medical testimony, sufficiently proved the prosecution’s case.
Reformative Approach to Sentencing
While affirming the conviction, the Court examined whether the sentence required modification.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, which emphasizes the reformative theory of punishment.
Quoting the Supreme Court judgment, the Court reproduced a significant observation:
“If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and men are not improved by injuries.”
The Court noted that modern penology focuses not merely on punishment but on the rehabilitation of offenders, recognizing that excessive incarceration may not serve societal interests.
Factors Considered for Sentence Reduction
The High Court identified several mitigating circumstances:
- The appellants are father and son
- They have family responsibilities
- No criminal antecedents were reported
- They had already spent over 15 months in jail
- The incident occurred in 2024, and the accused has faced the criminal process since then
Considering these factors, the Court concluded that reducing the sentence would meet the ends of justice.
Final Directions of the High Court
The High Court partly allowed the appeal with the following directions:
- Conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was maintained
- Sentence reduced from 5 years to 1 year and 6 months
- Fine of ₹2,000 each remained unchanged
- Period already spent in custody to be set off against the sentence
Since the appellants had already served 1 year, 3 months, and 3 days, the remaining sentence would be calculated accordingly.
The Court also directed that copies of the judgment be sent to the trial court and the concerned jail superintendent for necessary action.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
