13323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 183 of 20 08 v. • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station Raghunathnagar, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:13323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 183 of 20 08 1. Chaturi Gaderi S/o Dadaie Gaderi aged about 52 years (appeal abated against him) 2. Jagjeevan Gaderi S/o Chaturi Gaderi aged about 22 years 3. Phote @ Rajkumar S/o Amar Gaderi aged about 25 years 4. Charku @ Ramkrit S/o Phatte Gaderi aged about 28 years All are R/o Village Jogiyani, P.S. Raghunathnagar, Chauki Balungi, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station Raghunathnagar, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent
Legal Reasoning
For Appellants No.2 to 4 : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Adv. on behalf For Respondent/State of Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate. : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 20 / 03 /202 5 1 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 19.02.2025, appellant No.2-Jagjeevan Gaderi, appellant No. 3-Phote @ Rajkumar and appellant No. 4-Charku @ Ramkrit are present in person before this Court. Thier presence be Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.22 10:25:52 +0530 2 marked. 2 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 19.02.2025, a bailable warrant was issued against appellant No. 1- Chaturi Gaderi returned unserved with a report of Police Station – Raghunathpur, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) that appellant No. 1-Chaturi Gaderi died on 07.10.2023, and a death certificate has been attached to this effect. 3 In view of that, the appeal against appellant No. 1-Chaturi Gaderi stands dismissed as abated and the appeal is
Decision
hereby heard and disposed of in respect of appellant No.2- Jagjeevan Gaderi, appellant No. 3-Phote @ Rajkumar and appellant No. 4-Charku @ Ramkrit. 4 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.01.2008 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge (SC & ST Act), Sessions Division- Surguja at Ambikapur (C.G.), in special Sessions Trial No. 24/2007 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced appellant No.2-Jagjeevan Gaderi, appellant No. 3-Phote @ Rajkumar and appellant No. 4- Charku @ Ramkrit as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 323 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 2 months. U/s 341 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 month (Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently). 5 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.10.2006, at about 10:00 am, the complainant namely Budhram along with Sumppat was going to Wadrafnagar on motorcycle, at that time, on the way, all the accused 3 persons stopped their motorcycle and on account of possession of government land started to abuse Budhram with intention to humiliate and insult of his caste in public place and also threaten for life. It is also alleged that they assaulted the complainant with the help of stick and knife. On the basis of complaint, FIR was lodged against the accused persons and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. 6 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. The statements of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 7 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.01.2008, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as mentioned in para-4 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 8 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2006, and thereby more than 18 years have rolled by since then. At present, appellants No.2, 3 and 4 are aged about 40, 43 and 46 years respectively and appellant No. 2 has already remained in jail for about 27 days; appellants No 3 & 4 have already remained in jail for about 9 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them may be 4 reduced to the period already undergone by them. 9 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellants. 10 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 11 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Sampat Ram (PW-1), Budhnath (PW-2), Dr. Manju Ekka (PW-3), D.R. Kashyap (PW-5) and S.S. Paikra (PW-6), establishes the involvement of appellants No.2, 3 and 4 in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of appellants No. 2, 3 and 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC. 12 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2006 about 18 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that appellants have no criminal antecedent and appellant No.2 has already remained in jail for about 27 days; appellants No. 3 & 4 have already remained in jail for about 9 days, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 13 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back appellants No.2, 3 and 4 to jail. Hence, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 1 month for the offences punishable under 5 Sections 323 & 341 of IPC respectively. However, the fine imposed upon each of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC by the trial Court shall remain intact. 14 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 15 Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 16 Record of the trial Court be sent along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. H.L. Sahu Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE