1. 2. Themaram, S/o Mandev Uraon, Aged about 40 years, Rama Uraon, S/o Behan v. State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Sarguja
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:16527 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 36 of 2007 1. 2. Themaram, S/o Mandev Uraon, Aged about 40 years, Rama Uraon, S/o Behan Uraon, aged about 32 years, Both R/o Village Machinder Para, Khairbar, P.S. Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja (CG) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Sarguja (CG) ... Respondent For Appellants : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 08/04/2025 The appellants in this appeal are challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2006 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, FTC, (CG) in ST No.353/2005 whereby the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under: 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 326/34 of IPC to Imprisonment for 07 years, pay a both the appellants. fine of Rs.200/- and in default thereof to suffer additional SI for 01 month. Under Section 341 of IPC to both RI for 01 month. the appellants Under Section 323 of IPC to RI for 06 months. appellant No.2 Rama Uraon. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.11.2004 at around 5.30 pm victim Ram Uraon (PW-4) was standing in front of his house. Accused Rama Uraon came there and started abusing Ram Uraon filthily. He told the victim that his brother Themaram and himself have beaten Ramprasad with sword and club and now they would beat him. Accused Rama Uraon assaulted on him with a club near his right eye. Ram Uraon (PW-4) ran away from there and met Ramjeet on the way who told him that Dharamjeet informed him that while they were returning with Ramprasad after watching cricket, the accused persons intercepted Ramprasad on the way and beat him with sword and club. It was informed that accused Thema assaulted Ramprasad with sword which hit his left hand and he fell down unconscious. Thereafter they all went to the spot where Ramprasad was found lying on the ground in pool of blood. They took him back to the house and then admitted in district hospital. After completion of investigation, the police filed 3 charge sheet against the accused persons before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. 03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 307/34, 323 and 341 of IPC against accused Rama Uraon and under Sections 307/34 and 341 of IPC against accused Thema Uraon. The accused persons abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 06. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the contradiction and omission in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It has also not appreciated the defence of the accused persons that the complainant party wanted to grab their lands and therefore, they have falsely implicated them in 4
Decision
this offence. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of all the charges. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.1 Themaram has already been released from jail on 26.1.2010 after completion of entire sentence. So far as sentence of appellant No.2 is concerned, if this ultimately comes to the conclusion that his conviction is just and proper, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the incident which took place in the year 2004, the appeal is pending since 2007, he was on bail during trial as also during pendency of this appeal but never misused the liberty while on bail, he has remained in jail for about 15 months, his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him under Section 326/34 of IPC. 07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellants submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellants by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 09. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that appellant No.1 Themaram was charged under Sections 307/34 & 341 of IPC and 5 appellant No.2 Rama Uraon was charged under Sections 307/34, 323 and 341 of IPC, and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted both the appellants under Sections 326/34 and 341 of IPC while convicting appellant No.2 under Section 323 of IPC also. 10. PW-2 Ramprasad, injured, states that on the date of incident while he was returning with Dharam, Laljeet, Jaishankar, Rajkumar and Amit after playing cricket, the accused/appellants Rama and Thema stopped him near the house of Rajkumar and then Rama caught hold of him whereas Thema assaulted him with sword on his leg, head and hand as a result of which he fell down on the ground. He states that Rama also assaulted him with club on his back, leg and hand. 11. PW-4 Ram, another injured, states that upon coming to know that the accused persons are beating his brother Ramprasad, while he was running towards the place of occurrence, the accused Rama met him on the way and beat him as a result of which he fell unconscious. He sustained injury over head and was taken to hospital. In cross- examination both these witnesses denied the adverse suggestions of the defence and remained firm on their statements. 12. PW-3 Rajesh and PW-5 Laljeet, eyewitnesses to the incident, supporting the statements of the injured witnesses, state that accused 6 Thema assaulted Ramprasad with sword whereas accused Rama assaulted him as also Ram with club. 13. PW-7 Dr. BP Chandra medically examined injured Ram on 13.11.2004 and noticed a lacerated wound near his right eyebrow of size 3 x .5 cm upto skin deep and opined that the injury was simple in nature and can be caused by hard and blunt object. He admits his signature on the medical report Ex.P/4 from A to A part. He also admits his signature from C to C part on the dying declaration Ex.P/1 of injured Ramprasad which was recorded by Naib Tehsildar, Ambikapur. In cross-examination he admits that at the time of giving statement of Ex.P/1, injured Ramprasad was in a position to make such statement. 14. PW-9 Dr. BS Sengar examined injured Ramprasad on 13.11.2004 and noticed incised wound on left parietal of scalp of size 10 x 4 cm bone deep with profound bleeding; incised wound over right leg upto bone deep of size 6 x 6 cm and fracture of bone was visible. He also noticed incised wound obliquely arranged in flax aspect of all the four fingers of hand upto bone deep. He opined that the said injuries could be caused by any sharp edged weapon and death was possible for want of immediate treatment. He advised for x-ray of the injuries for ascertaining its nature. He admitted his signature from A to A part on the medical report Ex.P/9A. In cross-examination he states that all the three injuries were grievous in nature and denied the suggestion that these injuries could be caused due to fall and 7 reiterated that said injuries could be caused only with sharp edged weapon. 15. PW-10 Dr. MK Jain conducted x-ray examination of injured Ramprasad and found fracture in lower part of tibia bone of right leg vide his report Ex.P/19 which bears his signature from A to A part. 16. PW-1 RN Pandey, Naib Tehsildar, states that on 13.11.2004 he recorded dying declaration of injured Ramprasad wherein he stated that accused Rama assaulted him with club whereas accused Thema with sword. 17. Considering the unrebutted evidence of the injured witnesses PW-2 Ramprasad and PW-4 Ram which finds due corroboration from the ocular evidence of PW-3 Rajesh and PW-5 Lajeet as also from the medical evidence of PW-7 BP Chandra, PW-9 BS Sengar and PW-10 Dr MK Jain; the dying declaration Ex.P/1 of injured Ramprasad; the evidence of PW-1 RN Pandey, Naib Tehsildar and looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the victims, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and rightly held accused/appellant Themaram guilty under Sections 326/34 and 341 of IPC and accused/appellant Rama Uraon under Sections 326/34, 341 as also 323 of IPC. 18. As regards sentence, appellant No.1 Themaram has already been released from jail on 26.1.2010 after completion of entire 8 sentence. With regard to sentence of appellant No.2, considering the facts and circumstances of the case; the role attributed to this appellant; the fact that the incident took place in the year 2004, the appeal is pending since 2007, at the time of incident he was 32 years of age and at present must be of 52 years; he was on bail during trial as also during pendency of this appeal and never misused the liberty granted to him; he has remained in jail for about 15 months, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending him back to jail at this stage and ends of justice would be met if his jail sentence under Section 326/34 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellants awarded by learned trial Court is hereby maintained. However, the jail sentence imposed under Section 326/34 of IPC on appellant No.2 Rama Uraon is reduced to the period already undergone while keeping the fine imposed on him with default sentence by trial Court intact. He is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall continue for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.04.09 16:39:59 +0530 Khan Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge