Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:14914 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 198 of 20 07 • Muktar Singh @ Nikke S/o Harbansh Singh aged about 28 years, R/o New Khursipar, Panjabi Mohalla, Bhilai, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: District Magistrate, Police Station – Chhawani, Bhilai, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant For Respondent/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 27 / 03 /202 5 1 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 06.03.2025, the appellant is present in person before this Court, his presence be marked. 2 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2007 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Jude (FTC), Durg (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 13/2005 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.28 10:27:28 +0530 2 under : Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 2 months. 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the dated of offence i.e. 23.10.2004, at about 22:30 hours complainant Chuneshwar Sahu lodged a complaint stating therein that he along with Pawan and Chandrashekhar was come to see Dasahra at Khursipar and they were went near high school for having jalebi sweets and when they were returning to Dasahra Ground, at that time the appellant and co-accused Babu were quarreling with some other person, when he along with his friends reached near the School situated at G.E. road, at that time, the appellant and co-accused Babu came there and started assault with the help of knife saying that they had quarreled with them, due to the said assault, complainant Chuneshwar Sahu sustained a grievous injury on his abdomen. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was lodged against the accused persons and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. 4 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 5 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2007, learned Judge has acquitted co-accused Surendra Singh @ Babu 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 of IPC and the appellant herein was also acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of IPC and Section 25(1)(1-B)(b) of Arms Act. However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned in para-2 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6 Learned counsel for the appellant 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. He submits that as per MLC report (Ex.P-10), injured Chuneshwar Sahu has suffered only one injury, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2004, and thereby more than 20 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about 48 years and he has already remained in jail for about 9 months, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9 Dr. P. Akhtar (PW-11) conducted the MLC of victim Chuneshwar Sahu (PW-2) and gave his report vide Ex.P-10. According to the MLC report (Ex.P-10), the victim suffered only one injury sized 2.5 x ½ cm, on 3.5 cm below from 12th rib. Dr. P. Akhtar (PW-11) opined that the said injury was likely to have been caused by a hard and sharp object, 4 but he did not opine that the said injury was sufficient to cause the death of the victim. 10 Sonu Singh Pawar (PW-10) has stated that he was also present at the Dasahra Ground where the said assault was committed. He has also stated that at some distance, Chuneshwar was assaulted by some persons, saying that Chuneshwar had teased some girls; therefore, their family members were assaulting him, and when he went to intervene, he also sustained injury. 11 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Dr. R.P. Singh (PW-1), Chuneshwar (PW-2), Pawan Kumar (PW-7), Chandrashekhar (PW-8), I.R. Sahu (PW-9), Sonu Singh Pawar (PW-10) and Dr. P. Akhtar (PW-11), establishes the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 12 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2004 about 20 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant has no criminal antecedent and he has already remained in jail for about 9 months, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 13 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 5 However, the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 5000/-. The imposed/enhanced fine amount by this Court today shall be payable by the appellant, failing which the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 4 months. Fine, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted to the fine imposed/enhanced by this Court today. 14 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 15 The appellant is on bail. If the fine is not deposited within 60 days from today, the appellant's bail bonds shall stand cancelled, and the fine will be recovered as per law. 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