Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:16266 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1093 of 2008 1 - Dhan Lal S/o Lakhan Lal Sarathi, Aged About 27 Years 2 - Hori Lal (Dead) As Per Court Order Dt. 18-11-2009 And 17-03-2021. Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 3 - Jan Singh S/o Chain Singh Gond, Aged About 28 Years 4 - Makhan Lal S/o Banshi Lal Sarathi, Aged About 55 Years 5 - Adhana Lal S/o Lakhan Lal Sarathi, Aged About 25 Years All R/o Village Bitkuli, Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh versus Appellants 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station - Seepat, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Respondent For Appellant For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate Mr. Devesh Kela, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 07/04/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2008 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in ST No.136/2008, 2 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 326 and 147, 148 & 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and RI for 1 year, respectively, with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the date of incident on 04.08.2008 complainant Chamru Singh and his wife Sukhin Bai and their son together went to the field at noon, where the appellants came and started abusing them and assaulted them by the hand, fist, club etc. on a land dispute. Thereafter complainant Chamaru Singh lodged a report against the appellants, upon which a case was registered against the accused. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The seizure witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. There was a land dispute between the appellants and the complainant party, out of which a false case was registered against the appellants, but the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Trial Court and 3 they have been wrongly convicted by the learned Trial Court. Alternatively Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during pendency of the appeal, appellant No.2 Horilal has died, the incident took place in the year 2008 and the appellant No.4 is presently aged more than 72 years, whereas the appellant Nos.1, 3 & 5 are presently aged about 40-45 years, this appeal is pending since 2008 and the appellants have remained in jail for more than 3 months, therefore, they may kindly be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 325 & 307 read with Section 149, 294 & 506-B of IPC against the appellants and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellants of the offence under Section 294, 506-B, 307 & 325 of IPC and convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 326 & 4 147, 148 & 149 of IPC, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. PW-1 Chamru Singh stated that on the date of incident when he was working in his agricultural field, then the accused persons came there and committed maarpeet with him, thereafter he lodged FIR (Ex-P/1) against the appellants. PW-2 Sukhin Bai also supported the statement of Chamru Singh and stated that the appellants assaulted them with club. Ramnarayan (PW-3) stated that the accused persons assaulted his mother Sukhin Bai and his father Chamru Singh and they sustained injuries. Saukhilal (PW-7) have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of the prosecution. 8. PW-8 Dr. S. K. Chandel examined Chamru Singh and Sukhin Bai and found injuries and gave his report vide Ex-P/17 & P/18 and also advised for x-ray. Dr. George M. Khakha stated as as per x- ray report, he found fracture in right hand and chest of Sukhin Bai and gave his report vide Ex-P/15. Both the doctors supported the case of the prosecution and found that both the complainants Chamru Singh and Sukhin Bai sustained injuries and both the witnesses stated that all the appellants assaulted the complainants with club. Ramnarayan (PW-3) also supported the statement of the complainants. The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the statement of doctors and rightly convicted the appellants under Section 326 of IPC and 147, 148 & 149 of IPC and acquitted them under Sections 307, 325, 294 & 506-B of 5 IPC, as such this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Sections 326, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC is affirmed. 9. As regards sentence, it is clear that during pendency of the appeal, appellant No.2 Horilal has died, the incident took place in the year 2008 and the appellant No.4 is presently aged more than 72 years, whereas the appellant Nos.1, 3 & 5 are presently aged about 40-45 years, this appeal is pending since 2008 and the appellants have remained in jail for more than 3 months and they were enlarged on bail by this Court and they never misused the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them 10. The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. 11. The appellant Nos.1 & 3 to 5 are reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant Nos.1 & 3 to 5 are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each before the court concerned forthwith. The bail bond furnished by the appellants shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event 6 of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. 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 Nirala