Nafr High Court
Case Details
ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.25 14:43:58 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.A. No. 591 of 2005 1. Ram Lal Kaushik, S/o Shri Harak Ram Kaushik, aged about 30 Years, R/o Village Poudikhurd, Police Station Chakarbhata, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. (Deleted) Harbansh As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 18-02-2025 3. Jwala Prasad, S/o Shri Harak Ram, aged about 32 Years, R/o Village Poudikhurd, Police Station Chakarbhata, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Doman Prasad, S/o Shri Harak Ram, aged about 45 Years, R/o Village Poudikhurd, Police Station Chakarbhata, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Mahendra, S/o Shri Doman Kaushik, aged about 23 Years, R/o Village Poudikhurd, Police Station Chakarbhata, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. Vijay, S/o Shri Habanah Lal, aged about 22 Years, R/o Village Poudikhurd, Police Station Chakarbhata, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus ---- Appellants State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Chakarbhata, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) _________________________________________________________ For Appellants :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate. ---- Respondent For State/Respondent _________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Ms. Neeta Tulsyani, P.L. : 18.06.2025 Judgment on Board 1. This appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) has been filed, assailing the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment dated 21.06.2005 passed in Session Case No. 323 of 2004 by IX Additional Sessions Judge -2- (F.T.C), Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner below: Conviction Sentence U/s 147 of IPC U/s 323 of IPC U/s 325/34 of IPC For Causing injury to Sukhalu & Tek Ram U/s 325/34 of IPC For causing injury to Santosh RI for 2 months and fine amount of Rs.300/- appellant. of to (in default of fine Addl. R.I. for 15 days). each the RI for 01 month and fine amount of Rs.200/- appellant. of to (in default of fine Addl. R.I. for 10 days). each the RI for 02 years and fine amount of Rs.250/- appellant. to (in default of fine Addl. R.I. for 03 Months). each the of RI for 02 years and fine amount of Rs.250/- to appellant. (in default of fine Addl. R.I. for 03 Months). each the of 2. Initially, six accused persons were put to trial for the aforementioned offences and, by the impugned judgment, they were convicted and sentenced as stated above. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 2 – Harbansh – passed away, and accordingly, the appeal preferred by him stood abated. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of the incident, i.e., 19.02.2004 at about 07:00 AM, Jahurabai (PW-8) and Betich, the mother of appellant Jwalaprasad (A-1), had gone to fetch water from -3- the tap. At that time, the mother of appellant Jwalaprasad questioned Jahurabai (PW-8) as to why she was drawing water first from the tap and also accused her daughter of using abusive language during the previous night. A quarrel ensued between them, and at that juncture, appellant Ramlal reached the spot and assaulted Jahurabai (PW-8) with a lathi, causing her injuries on her thighs, leg, and head. 5. The incident was witnessed by Tekram (PW-6), the husband of Jahurabai, as well as Sukalu (PW-7), Shantibai (PW-1), and her son Santosh (PW-2), who also rushed to the spot to intervene. Thereafter, the remaining appellants, sharing a common object, arrived at the scene, hurled filthy abuses at them, and assaulted them with lathis. 6. As a result of the assault: Jahurabai sustained injuries on both legs, thighs, and head; Shantibai sustained injuries on her right leg, thighs, right wrist, and head; Santosh Yadav suffered injuries on his head and back; Tekram sustained injuries on his left wrist, ribs, below both knees, and over the right eyebrow; Sukalu sustained injuries on his head, right wrist, and below the right knee. 7. The appellants also criminally intimidated them with dire consequences. 8. Initially 06 accused persons were put to trial for the aforesaid offences -4- and by the impugned judgment they were convicted and sentenced as stated above. 9. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 2 - Harbansh passed away and his appeal stood abated. 10. Case of prosecution, in nutshell, is that, on the date of incident i.e. 19/02/2004 at about 07:00 in the morning Jahuahurabai (PW-8) and mother of the appellant – Jwalaprasad (A-1) had gone to press the water from the tap at that time the mother of the appellant – Jwalaprasad has asked Jahurabai (PW-8) as to why she press the water firstly from the tab and her daughter filthily in the night. A quarrel issue between them at that time appellant Ramlal went there and assaulted Jahurabai (PW-8) by Lathi. As a result of which she sustained injury on her leg, thy and head. Assault is seen by Tekram (PW-6) husband of Jahurabai, Sukalu (PW-7), Shantibai (PW-1) and her son Santosh (PW-2) went there to intervene. Thereafter, the rest of the appellants with common object filthily abused them and assaulted them with Lathi (stick). Due to the assault made, Jahurabai sustained injuries on both the leg, both the thys and on head, Shantibai on her right leg and thys, right wrist and head, Santosh Yadav sustain injuries on his head and back (peeth), Tekram injuries on his left hand of the wrist, left rips, on below both the knees and right eye-brow and Sukhalu sustain injuries on his head, right wrist and below the right knee. The appellants -5- also threatened them for dire consequences. 11. Complainant - Tekram (PW-6) lodged the report at 13:00 hrs. at Police Station – Chakarbhatta. During course of investigation statement of the witnesses were recorded. Injured – Shantibai, Tekram, Sukhalu, Jahurabai and Santosh Yadav were medically examined. X-ray of Santosh, Tekram and Sukhalu was conducted in which the fracture was found, however no fracture was found in the X-ray of Shantibai. The injured were admitted in the CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for a long period. Query being made, Doctor has opined head injury of the injured to be dangerous to life and in absence of treatment could have cause the death. Lathi was seized from all the appellants. Spot map was prepared and the appellants were arrested. 12. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. After committal, the case was received by the Session Court, Bilaspur who made over the case for trial Court for trial. 13. The appellants were charged for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 323/34, 325, 325/34, 506(B) and 307 altered with 307/34 of the I.P.C. The appellants denied the charges and they claimed to be tried. 14. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. -6- Statement of the appellants under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication. 15. The learned trial court after appreciation of evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced as stated in paragraph one of this judgment which led to filing of this appeal. 16. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution could not prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. He submit that there was a counter case and there was a free fight amongst the appellants and accused persons, therefore it cannot be said that the appellants were aggressor. He further submits that the conviction of the appellants is bad in law without proper appreciation of evidence on records. Alternatively, he submits that the appellants and the injured persons are resident of the same village and they have entered into the compromise and for that purposes an application under section 320 (b) of the Cr.P.C. has already been filed. He submits that the appellants have face the lis for more than 20 years. Now presently the appellants and injured persons are residing peacefully in the same village. Therefore certain in the event the appeal having being dismissed, the sentenced may be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine. He further submits that the appellants been a first offenders and rest of Villagers, may be extended benefit of Section 4 Probation of Offender Act, 1958. -7- 17. Learned State Counsel opposing the submissions and submits that the injured witnesses have categorical deposed against the appellants and the doctor has also corroborated the statement of the injured witnesses. Fracture was found on the person of three injured persons, therefore, the conviction of the appellants cannot be said to be perverse contrary to the evidence. She further submits that non-pendency may not be reason to reduced the sentence, therefore, she submits that the appeal may be dismissed. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence to its proper prospective. In that context it would be necessary to look into the statement of the injured witnesses. 19. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely. 20. First question which comes before this Court as to whether the appellants are the author of the crime. Jahurabai who has gone to press the water from the tab has been examined as PW-8 who in her statement categorically deposed that she had gone to press the water a tap near the house of the Horilal and also deposed that at that time mother (Kejbai) of Ramlal was also came there to press the water and started quarreling with her. At that time Ramlal came and assaulted her with Lathi on her head and thy as a result she fell down. Thereafter, her husband – Tekram (PW- -8- 6), brother-in-law Sukhalu (PW-7), sister-in-law - Shantibai (PW-1) and son – Santosh (PW-2) came to intervened and thereafter she fell down and became unconscious. She also admit that she was medically examined. She was objected to lengthy cross-examination but on material particular, she remained firm in examination-in-chief. Her statement is also corroborated by the statement of Shantibai (PW-1), Santosh (PW-2), Tekram (PW-6) and Sukhalu (PW-7). They have also stated in the line of Jahurabai (PW-8). From the assessment of these evidence, the learned trial Court found the victim guilty of the aforesaid offences. In the opinion of this Court it does not find any fault in that case. 21. The statement of the eye-witnesses and the injured witnesses is also corroborated by the statement of Dr. C.S. Dhruv (PW-4), Dr. Pramod Tiwari (PW-5), Dr. Pradeep Soni (PW-9), Dr. George M. Xaxa (PW-10) and Dr. S. Chaterjee (PW-11). They found the following injuries on the persons of injured person :- (a) Dr. C.S. Dhruv (PW-4) opined that Shantibai (PW-1) sustained following :- (i) Lacerated wound on head 3 x1/2cms. (ii) Right Wrist 2 x ½ cm (iii) Thy 10x4 cm. (b) Dr. Pramod Tiwari (PW-5) opined that Santosh Yadav (PW-2) sustained following :- (i) Left side of head 6 x4cm. (ii) Right side of waist 10 x 4cm. (iii) Left side of waist 10 x 4cm. (iv) Lacerated wound on left eye brow. (c) Dr. Pradeep Soni (PW-9) opined that Santosh Yadav (PW-2) injuries on the head was grievous in nature and caused death. -9- (d) Dr. George M. Xaxa (PW-10) opined that X-ray of Santosh Yadav (PW-2) was conducted fractured on left side of the head. (e) Dr. S. Chaterjee (PW-11) opined that there was a fractured on the hand of the Sukhalu (PW-7). 22. From the record, it is also found that fractured was sustained by three injured witnesses Santosh Yadav (PW-2), Sukhalu (PW-7) and Tekram (PW-6). The next submission is that there was a free fight and the appellants were not the aggressor, this submission has liable to be rejected barring statement of the above stated witnesses. Initiation of the dispute with regard to fetching of the water and suddenly Ram Lal Kaushik (A-1) came there and started assaulting the Jahurabai (PW-8) and when the other injured person came to intervened the other appellants came and assaulted with Lathi and stick. Therefore it cannot be said that the injured person where the aggressor, therefore, this submission is also rejected. 23. Considering the material available on record and submission of learned counsel for the appellant is repelled. This lead to the second submissions with regard reduction of sentence to the period already undergone. The maximum sentence awarded to the appellants are 02 years and they remained in jail for 05 days. It has been stated that the fine amount is already been deposited. The incident is of the year-2004. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that he has involved in any criminal activity during pendency of this appeal. There is all -10- possibilities that during these years they must have reformed in the Society. 24. Considering, the entire material and circumstance, this court is inclined to allow the appeal in part and reduced their sentence to the period already undergone of 05 days while maintaining the fine amount. Therefore, appeal is partly allowed to the above extent. 25. Since the appellant is reported to be on bail, their bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of the provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 26. Record of the case be sent back to learned trial court. Ashish Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge