Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2025:CGHC:34112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 847 of 2008 Ram Kumar S/o Shri Samay Lal Rajak, aged about 37 years, R/o Village - Tanera, Chauki - Korbi, P.S. - Pasan, Tehsil - Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Pasan, Tehsil Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) Versus ... Respondent For Appellant :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 18.07.2025 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora District- Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 12/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/S 436 of I.P.C. R.I. for 02 years with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 03 months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.11.2006, at 5 pm the appellant 2 stopped a truck in front of the hotel of complainant- Mohru Singh who used to run a hotel in a hut in village Tanera, and the accused demanded money from the driver, so that he can drink alcohol and the driver has given him Rs. 25/-, the accused then told him to eat food and then go and the driver replied to him that he will come after having a bath, and the accused/appellant said him that you will run away. The complainant Mohru Singh came in defence of the driver by saying that no he will not run away. The accused/appellant being infuriated by the complainant, abused him by using filthy words and warned him that he will lit up his hotel and by saying that he lit a matchstick, took a log which was already burning and then he set the complainant’s hut like hotel ablaze. Since his hotel got burnt, the complainant’s Rs 5000/- worth of goods were damaged. Thereafter, the complainant Mohru Singh went to the Police Station, Pasan and lodged an F.I.R against the accused/appellant and on the basis of the said complaint, the police started investigating the case and registered the case under Section 436 of IPC at Chauki -Korbi and then Police Station Pasan. 3. Thereafter, the accused was taken into custody and the statement of the accused person/appellant and other relevant witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora and the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) for offence under Section 436 of IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 06 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also 3 recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, he adduced 02 witnesses in his defence. 5. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no offence under Section 436 of IPC is made out against the appellants because most of the witnesses were hostile and the learned trial Court relied upon only interested witnesses. The appellant was Up-Sarpanch at that time and still, he has sent a notice to the complainant for illegally selling the wine in his hotel and captured the government land to make hotel, that is why the complainant has lodged false report against the appellant with the help of interested witnesses Haribhajan and Shivbhajan. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2008, at that time the accused/appellant was aged about 37 years, now he is aged more than 55 years; he has remained in jail for about 21 days, he has never misused the liberty while being on bail, as such in the interest of justice the appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present accused/appellant, so this appeal is being devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 9. It is clear from record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant under Section 436 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 436 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 10. Mohru Singh (PW/01) the complainant has stated that in village Tanera, he is having a hut where he lives with his family and there he runs hotel for his livelihood, his hotel is situated near Beejdand Barrier and the same was set ablaze by the accused/appellant. On 15.11.2006 at about 4 pm the accused/appellant came to his hotel and ordered him to cook chicken for him and the complainant was cooking the same. The appellant used to stop the truck carrying coal which passes by the complainant’s hotel and he used to say them to spend their money for food in the hotel, but he stopped one truck driver viz. Prashant who was 5 staying in his hotel and in that truck the son of the complainant was also there as he works for the truck driver, after stopping the truck, the accused told the driver to have food and then go, the driver replied him that he will come after having bath, to which the appellant said him that you will run away, the complainant came to defence of the driver by saying that no he will not run away. The accused/appellant being infuriated by the complainant, abused him by using filthy words and warned him that he will lit up his hotel and by saying that he lit a matchstick, however the matchstick did not lit up, as such he took a log which was already burning, he then threw the same over the hut like hotel of the complainant and set it ablaze. The complainant denied the suggestion of the defence that he used to run alcohol shop in his hut like hotel. 11. Shivbhajan Singh (PW/02), Shivkumar (PW/03), Smt. Rambai (PW/04) have supported the statement of the complainant Mohru Singh (PW/01). O.P. Singh (PW/06) prepared Nuksani Panchnama memo (Ex. P/09) and as per this memo, the complainant suffered as loss of Rs. 5,000/-. The learned trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the accused/appellant under Section 436 of IPC. As such, the conviction of the appellant is hereby maintained. 12. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2006 and this appeal is pending since 2008. The appellant is now aged more than 50 years; and he has remained in jail for about 21 days, he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him while being on bail, thus 6 considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2006 and the total detention period of the accused/appellant, this Court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him under Section 436 of IPC. 13. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 436 of IPC, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in the aforesaid Section. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 14. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the like amount before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. U. K. Raju Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge