1. Jagjeevan S/o Shri Chaturi Gaderi, aged about 22 years, R/o Village- Jogiyani, P.S v. • State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station- Raghunathnagar, District- Surguja
Case Details
Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 1 2025:CGHC:27803 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 468 of 2008 1. Jagjeevan S/o Shri Chaturi Gaderi, aged about 22 years, R/o Village- Jogiyani, P.S. Raghunathnagar, Chauki Balundi, District- Surguja (C.G.) 2. Ramlaxman S/o Shri Chaturi Gaderi, aged about 22 years, R/o Village- Jogiyani, P.S. Raghunathnagar, Chauki Balundi, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellants versus • State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station- Raghunathnagar, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent/State _____________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
For Appellants : Mr. Sunil Tripathi & Mr. Avinash Dubey, Advocates. For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 25.06.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 08.04.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, SC & ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Special Sessions Trial No. 25/2007, Sessions Division- Surguja Place- Ambikapur (C.G.), wherein the said Court convicted the 2 appellants and sentenced them as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 323 of IPC R.I. for 06 months. Under Section 323/34 of IPC R.I. for 06 months each. (three times) (Both substantive sentences shall run concurrently) 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.10.2006 at about 8:00 am, the appellants were grazing their cattle in agricultural field of complainant- Ramsakal (PW-1), when the complainant came to know that the appellants grazing their pearl millet (bajra) crop, the complainant along with his wife Manmati and his father Sobran went to the field for denying to not graze their cattle in his field, but they started abusing the complainant by using filthy language uttering on his caste and by threatening him to death, they then started assaulting to the complainant and his family members, due to which they received injuries over their bodies. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the report against the appellants before the concerned police station. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the jurisdictional Magistrate who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants for alleged commission of offence under Section 3 (i) (x) of SC & ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 323, 294 and 506-II of IPC. 3. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses to prove its case. Statement of both the accused/ appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which 3 they denied the incriminating charges leveled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. However, the appellants examined one witness in their defence. 4. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in inaugural paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has not properly evaluated the material available on record and wrongly convicted the appellant. Learned trial Court also failed to appreciate this fact that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredient of Section 323 of IPC and the specific allegation regarding the injury, which was received by the complainant was also not established, hence the conviction under Sections, 323 and 323/34 of IPC does not hold any ground for his conviction. There are material contradictions and omissions between the statements of the witnesses, therefore the story of the prosecution is totally doubtful. He further submits that learned trial Court failed to appreciate this fact that there was subsisting enmity between the parties, hence prosecution had failed to prove its
Decision
case beyond reasonable doubt. So, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellants under Section 323, 323/34 of IPC, as imposed by the Trial Court is just and proper, the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2008, appellants are now aged more 4 than 40 years and appellant No. 1 has remained in jail for more than 20 days and appellant No. 2 has remained in jail for about 9 days and they did not misuse the liberty while being on bail 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. 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. This appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is evident from record of learned learned trial Court that it framed charges for offence punishable under Section 3 (i) (x) of SC & ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 323, 294 and 506-II of IPC against the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellants for offence under Section 323, 323/34 (three times) of IPC. 9. Complainant- Ramsakal (PW-1) has stated in his deposition that on 14.10.2006 at about 8:00 am, the appellants were grazing their cattle in his agricultural field, when he came to know that the appellants’ cattle grazing their pearl millet (bajra) crop, he along with his family members went to the field for denying to not graze their cattle in his field, but they started abusing him by using filthy language uttering on his caste and 5 by threatening him to death, they had also assaulted them by club (lathi), due to which they received injuries on their body parts. 10. Manmati (PW-2), Diwakar (PW-3), Sobran (PW-4), i.e., family members of the complainant have supported the statement of the complainant and also stated in their depositions that on the date of incident, the appellants assaulted them by club (lathi). 11. Dr. Manju Ekka (PW-5), who examined the complainant (PW-1), (PW-2) (PW-3) and (PW-4) and found injuries on their body parts and gave her report vide Exs. P/4, P/5 P/6 and P/7. 12. It is quite vivid that statement of the complainant supported by other witnesses and medical evidence. Learned trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and thereby rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 323, 323/34 of IPC, looking to the statement of the doctor and considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality or irregularity in the findings as recorded by learned Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant. So, the conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed. 13. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2008, appellants are now aged more than 40 years and appellant No. 1 has remained in jail for more than 20 days and appellant No. 2 has remained in jail for about 9 days and they did not misuse the liberty while being on bail 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 6 sentence imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 14. Ex consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants under the aforementioned section is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 15. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 16. 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. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL