Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2025:CGHC:12936 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 497 of 2007 1 – Sunderpal, Son of Shri Motilal, aged about 28 years, Occupation – Driver, resident of Kansa Chowk, Tikrapara, P.S. TaarBaahar, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Vijay Tiwari, son of Shri R. K. Tiwari, aged about 30 years, Occupation Government Service (Bhoj University, Bilaspur, resident of Vidya Nagar, P.S. TaarBaahar, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Taarbaahar, Distt- Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent For the appellants : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 18/ 03 /2025 2 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.2007 passed in S.T.No.378/2005 by the IX Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under : U/s 324/34 of IPC : RI for 2 years each and fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months each. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.12.2004 in the night at 10.00 p.m., complainant P.W.5 along with his friend Santosh Singh Chauhan (P.W.4) went to a Paan Shop near Gayatri Mandir Chowk. One Manoj Shukla (P.W.6) also arrived there and asked the complainant to bring a Paan for him. As there was rush at the shop, the complainant stood nearby the Paan shop waiting for his turn. At that moment, it is alleged that appellant no.2 caught hold of the complainant from behind and appellant no.1 assaulted him by means of a knife. Thereafter, both the appellants ran away. Manoj Shukla (P.W.6) alongwith Santosh Singh (P.W. 4 ) who were present at the spot took the injured complainant to the hospital. Dehati Nalishi was registered at the Hospital on the report of Santosh Singh (P.W.4) The complainant was medically examined by the Doctors and thereafter the P.S. TaarBaahar registered the offence. After completion of investigation and on complying with the procedural requirements, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, 3 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 2 years RI awarded to them u/s 324/34 IPC, appellants Sunderpal and Vijay Tiwari had already remained in jail for about 16 days and 4 days respectively. He submits that the incident took place in 2004 since then the appellants are facing the lis and this appeal is pending since 2007 and now they are aged about 48 and 50 years respectively. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents reported against them. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of the appellants under section 324/34 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. From the records, it appears that A-1 Sunder Pal was driver by profession and A-2 Vijay Tiwari was a government servant. The learned trial Court has discussed about the nature of weapon used in the offence and held that no offence is made out u/s 307 of IPC beyond doubt, instead considering the evidence of witnesses convicted the appellants under 324/34 of IPC. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statement of complainant Ramprakash @ Bablu (P.W.5) which stood firm by the statements of Santosh Singh Chauhan (P.W.4) , Manoj Shukla (P.W.6) 4 and Shiv Pujan Pandey (P.W.7) and further considering the statement of Dr. Dharmendra Kumar (P.W.11) who has stated that he medically examined the injured and found 4 wounds on the person of complainant and further considering the other attending circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 324/34 of IPC and it is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the sentence of Appellants, considering the facts that the incident had taken place in 2004 about 20 years ago and the maximum jail sentence awarded to them is RI for 2 year, out of which, as stated by learned counsel the appellants had already remained in jail for 16 days and 4 days respectively and are facing the lis since 2004 and further looking to the present age of the appellants as also considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against them, in the interest of justice and in the considered opinion of this Court, instead of again sending them to jail, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellants from 2 years R.I. to the period already undergone by them for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of IPC. However, the sentence of fine imposed against the appellants shall remain intact. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. Appellants are on bail. They need not again surrender in this case. However, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 5 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao