1- Pawan Kumar, S/o Manager Prasad, aged about 22 years, Caste – Gond, R/o v. State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Supela, District Durg
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.28 16:57:35 +0530 2025:CGHC:14633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 372 of 2007 1- Pawan Kumar, S/o Manager Prasad, aged about 22 years, Caste – Gond, R/o Indira Nagar, Supela, P.S. Supela, District Durg (C.G.) 2 -Manoj Kumar, S/o Rajendra Prasad Yadav, aged about 21 years, R/o Indira Nagar, Supela, P.S. Supela, District Durg (C.G.) --- Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Supela, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No. 363 of 2007 Tarkeshwar, S/o Heeralal, aged about 19 years, R/o Indira Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Supela, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent 2 For Appellants in CRA No.372/2007 For Appellant in CRA No.363/2007 For Respondent/State : : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 26.03.2025 1. Since, both the appeals arise out of same Session Trial Number 368/2001, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2007 passed by learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 368/2001 whereby appellant Pawan Kumar has been convicted for offence under Sections 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 3 months and appellants Manoj Kumar and Tarkeshwar have been convicted for offence under Sections 326/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 3 months. 3. The case of prosecution, in short, is that, On June 23, 2001, at around 8:30 PM when complainant, Mohammad Kaleem, was sitting near Sheetla Temple in Bhilai, the four accused persons arrived. Due to old animosity, Appellant Pawan assaulted Mohammad Kaleem with the blunt side of a sword. When the complainant grabbed the sword, it fell to the ground. Then, accused Tarkeshwar took out a country-made pistol and handed it to Pawan, saying, “Kill him.” Upon this, Pawan fired at Mohammad 3 Kaleem’s left hand, causing bleeding injuries. Pawan then fired another shot in the air. As the complainant screamed, the four accused fled the scene. Sanjay immediately took Mohammad Kaleem to Sinha Nursing Home for treatment, then he was referred to the government hospital in Durg. The complainant underwent a medical examination, and Dehati Nalisi report (Exhibit P-10) was registered based on his statement. During treatment, 19 pellets were recovered from Mohammad Kaleem’s hand and were seized by the Police. A site inspection map was prepared. Based on accused Pawan’s memorandum statement, a country-made pistol was recovered from his possession, along with a sword. Witness statements were recorded, and after necessary investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellants. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the appellants / accused were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, converted/altered the offence from Section 307 or 307/34 IPC to Section 326 or 326/34 of IPC and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeals have been preferred by the appellants questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 6. Learned counsels appearing for the appellants submit that they does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine their arguments only on sentence part. They submit that the appellants have family responsibilities. The incident is more than 24 years old and Appellants Pawan, Manoj and Tarkeshwar have have already remained in jail for about 3 years 16 days, 266 days and 1 year 6 4 days respectively. The incident took place in the year 2001 and since then the appellants are facing the lis. This appeal is pending since 2007. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 9. Having gone through the material available on record, the statement of complainant Mohd. Kaleem (PW-6) and the statements of Dr. Bindeshwar Prasad Sinha (PW-2) his report (Ex.P-3) and Dr. A.K. Sahu (PW-8) and his report (Ex.P-13), establish the involvement of the Appellants in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 326 or 326/34 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 10.As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in the year 2001 i.e. about 24 years ago. The appellants are facing the lis since 2001, they have no criminal antecedents, they having family responsibilities and Appellant Pawan Kumar has already remained in jail for about 3 years, 16 days, Appellant Manoj Kumar has already remained in jail for about 266 days and Appellant Tarkeshwar has already remained in jail for about 1 year, 6 days. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellants to jail and the ends of justice would serve if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 11. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants Pawan, Manoj and 5 Tarkeshwar for offence under Section 326 or 326/34 of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 5 years is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 3 years 16 days, 266 days and 1 year 6 days respectively. However, the fine amount and its default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 12. Consequently, the appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13. The appellants are on bail. They need not to 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. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham