Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15117 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1059 of 200 8 • Nasir Qureshi S/o Mohammad Islam Musalman @ Ismaile Qureshi aged about 21 years, R/o Lions Chowk Champa, Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa, C.G. versus ... Appellant • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent CRA No. 27 of 200 9 • Vinod Kumar S/o Laxmi Kumar Tiwari aged about 38 years, R/o Village – telipara, Sadar Bazar, Champa, Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa, C.G. versus ... Appellant • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent CRA No. 588 of 20 11 • Suraj Sharma S/o Shiv Kumar Sharma aged about 24 years, R/o Loins Chowk Champa, Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.01 17:48:32 +0530 2 versus ... Appellant • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. For Appellants For Respondent/State ... Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Adv. in CRA No. 1059/2008 & CRA No. 27/2009 and Ms. Vaishali Jeswani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sumit Singh, Adv. in CRA No. 588/2011. : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 28 / 03 /202 5 1 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 07.03.2025, the appellant in CRA No. 1059/2008 and in CRA No. 27/2009 are present in person before this Court. Their presence be marked. 2 Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025 filed in CRA No. 588/2011, application for cancellation of non-bailable warrant. 3 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 07.03.2025, non- bailable warrant was issued against appellant Suraj Sharma in CRA No. 588/2011. 4 Since appellant Suraj Sharma secured his presence before this court today himself and the appeal is being decided finally today, I.A. No. 02/2025 is allowed and the non- bailable warrant issued against appellant Suraj Sharma stands recalled. 5 Since all the appeals arise out of the same incident and the question of law and facts are also similar in these appeals, 3 they have been clubbed together and heard together and
Decision
are being disposed of by this common judgment. 6 CRA No.1059/2008 & CRA No. 27/2009 arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2008 & 09.01.2009 respectively passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 57/2008; CRA No. 588/2011 arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 57/2008 whereby the learned Sessions Judges have convicted and sentenced all the appellants as under : Conviction Sentence Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years U/s 331/149 of with fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default IPC of payment of fine amount additional U/s 147 of IPC R.I. for 3 months. Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each. 7 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.02.2007, there was a marriage ceremony of one Devendra Sharma near the Chaupati at Champa. All the guests at the marriage ceremony were blessing the couple with different kinds of gifts. Then, Rohit @ Motu Gupta (now deceased) stole some articles, which was seen by one Shiv Shankar Yadav. Further, the case is that on the next day i.e. 23.02.2007 at about 3:30 pm, the appellants went to the Hotel of the father of the deceased and asked about the deceased and the theft articles then Shankar Lal Gupta, father of the deceased handed over the deceased Rohit @ Motu Gupta to the accused persons. Thereafter, the 4 appellants took the deceased to the Hasdeo Canal, Railway Bridge for interrogation about the theft of articles and an assault was committed on the deceased, and thereafter, suddenly, the deceased jumped from the bridge into the water. The deceased was taken out of the water and escorted to the hospital where he died. Merg intimation was given by doctor, which was registered as Merg intimation No. 14/2007. Inquest was conducted, and some injuries were found on the person of the deceased. The spot map was prepared. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted, in which the cause of death was found to be shock & hemorrhage. Hence, Crime No. 116/2007 was registered under Sections 302, 331, 147 r/w Section 149 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants. 8 So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The statements of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 9 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2008, learned Judge has acquitted appellant Nasir Qureshi for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 or 302 of IPC. However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned in para-6 of this judgment. Hence, the criminal appeal No.1059/2008. 10 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.01.2009, learned Judge has acquitted appellant Vinod Kumar for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 or 302 of 5 IPC. However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned in para-6 of this judgment. Hence, the criminal appeal No.27/2009. 11 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13/07/2011, learned Judge has acquitted appellant Suraj Sharma for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 or 302 of IPC. However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned in para-6 of this judgment. Hence, the criminal appeal No.588/2011. 12 Learned counsels for the appellants submit that they are not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine their argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to them, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2007, and thereby more than 17 years have rolled by since then. At present, appellant Nasir Qureshi is aged about 38 years and he has already remained in jail for about 1 year 4 months & 8 days; appellant Vinod Kumar is aged about 55 years and he has already remained in jail for about 4 months; appellant Suraj Sharma is aged about 41 years and he has already remained in jail for about 1 year, 6 months & 15 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 13 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsels for appellants. 14 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned 6 judgment. 15 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Shankar Lal Gupta (PW-2), Ishwari Bai Gupta (PW-3), Satish Dewangan (PW-4), Mohan Gupta (PW-6), Vijay Kumar Soni (PW-8), Baiju Yadav (PW-9), Kamlesh Kumar Dewangan (PW-10), Laxminarayan Soni (PW-11), Sahasram (PW-12), Shivshankar (PW-15), Hari Singh Chandel (PW-16), Dr. V.K. Agrawal (PW-17), Dr. Rajkumar Singh (PW-18) and K.S. Rathia (PW-20), establishes the involvement of the accused-appellants 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 appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 331/149 of IPC. 16 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the 2007 about 17 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that at present, appellant Nasir Qureshi is aged about 38 years and he has already remained in jail for about 1 year 4 months & 8 days; appellant Vinod Kumar is aged about 55 years and he has already remained in jail for about 4 months; appellant Suraj Sharma is aged about 41 years and he has already remained in jail for about 1 year, 6 months & 15 days, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 17 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send the appellants back to jail. Hence, so far as the jail sentence of R.I. for 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 331/149 is concerned, it is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by the 7 appellants. As regards, the sentence of appellants Nasir Qureshi and Suraj Sharma for the offence punishable under Section 147 of IPC, their sentence of R.I. for 1 year is hereby affirmed since they have already remained in jail for more than 1 year. However, the sentence of R.I. for 1 year imposed upon appellant Vinod Kumar for the offence punishable under Section 147 of IPC is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him, i.e. 4 months. However, the fine imposed upon each of the appellants by the Trial Court shall remain intact. 18 Consequently, the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 19 Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 20 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