1. Santosh Pal, S/o. Mand Ram Pal, Aged About 19 Years R/o Chakarbhata Basti v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur
Case Details
SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.25 12:27:42 +0530 1 CRA No. 1072 of 2004 & CRA No.34 of 2005 2025:CGHC:33779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1072 of 2004 1. Santosh Pal, S/o. Mand Ram Pal, Aged About 19 Years R/o Chakarbhata Basti, P. S. Chakarbhata, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Mant Ram S/o Jugat Ram Gadariya, Aged About 45 Years R/o Chakarbhata Basti, P. S. Chakarbhata, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) with CRA No. 34 of 2005 1. Radheshyam Sahu, S/o Ramlal Sahu, Aged About 24 Years.. 2. Dwarika Sahu, S/o Chola Ram Sahu, Aged About 24 Years. 3. Cholaram Sahu, S/o Malik Ram Sahu, Aged About 24 Years. 4. Zhadi Ram Kewat, S/o. Budh Ram Kewat, aged about 26 years. 5. Santosh Sahu, s/o. Ram Ratan Sahu, aged about 25 years. 6. Sita Ram, S/o. Ram Lal sahu, aged about 22 years. 7. Bedi Lal Sahu, s/o. Jaitu Ram Sahu, aged about 38 years. 2 CRA No. 1072 of 2004 & CRA No.34 of 2005 8. Ashok, S/o. Ram Ratan Sahu, aged about 22 years. 9. Satrughan Sahu, S/o. Pardeshi Sahu, aged about 24 years. [All R/o. Chakarbhata, Thana-Chakarbhata, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)] ---Appellant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur (C.G.). Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellants in CRA No.1072 of 2004
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Appellants in CRA No.34 of 2005 Mr. D.C. Verma along with Mr. Bhuneshwar Singh Rajput and Mr. Yamuna Prasad Verma, Advocates For State Respondent/ : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 17/07/2025 1. Since both the above-captioned appeals arising out of same Sessions Trial No. 83/2004, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment. 2. In the case at hand, 12 accused persons were tried and out of them, nine accused persons preferred CRA No. 34/2005; two accused persons preferred CRA No. 1072/2004; and one accused preferred CRA No. 262/2005. On account of death of Accused-Melaram, the appeal filed by him i.e. CRA No. 262/2005 has been abated by order dated 15/07/2025. 3 CRA No. 1072 of 2004 & CRA No.34 of 2005 Out of nine accused in CRA No.34/2005, appellant No. 3-Cholaram Sahu also died. The said fact is apparent from the certificate dated 10/07/2025 issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chakarbhata Basti, Janpad Panchayat, Bilha, District Bilaspur, whereby, he has certified that the appellant No.3 died 7-8 years back. As such, the appeal filed in respect of appellant No. 3-Cholaram Sahu in CRA No. 34/2005 stands abated. 3. Both these criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30/11/2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 83/2004 by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), District Bilaspur, (C.G.), whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 148 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years. U/s 450/149 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation. U/s 436/149 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, with default stipulation. U/s 435/149 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation. U/s 307/149 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation. 4 CRA No. 1072 of 2004 & CRA No.34 of 2005 U/s 325/149 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation. U/s 325/149 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation. U/s 323/149 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year U/s 323/149 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year U/s 323/149 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 29.01.2002 appellants along with many others persons forcibly entered in the house of the complainant namely; Dhruwa Kumar Bhange (PW-1) with the intention to kill his nephew namely; Ashish Rao (PW-7) and his friends namely Gajendra Pandey, Kushal Meshram, Amjad Khan and Massod Khan. Further allegations are that in furtherance of the above intention, the appellants assaulted those persons and caused them grievous injuries and they also ablazed the house of the complainant by putting fire, due to which the household articles amounting to Rs. 45,000/-, burnt. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered against the appellants. 5. During investigation, Spot Map (Ex.P/33) was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. 5 CRA No. 1072 of 2004 & CRA No.34 of 2005 6. After framing the charges against the accused/appellants, the charges were read out and explained to the appellants, they denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 7. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses in its support. Statements of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. 8. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph two of this judgment. Hence, these appeals. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel would submit that in the evidence of the witnesses, it can be seen that there are material contradiction and omissions. They would submit that the appellants have no intention to commit the offence and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. They further submit that merely on the strength of suspicion, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. It was further argued by learned counsel that the trial Court has not rightly appreciated the evidence on record and without there being any material and cogent evidence against the appellants, they have been convicted. According to the learned counsel, the alleged weapon used in the crime is a stick which, by no means, can 6 CRA No. 1072 of 2004 & CRA No.34 of 2005 be called a deadly weapon, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside and the appeals may be allowed. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants have remained in jail for about 5 ½ months. In the alternative, learned Counsels would pray that a lenient view may be taken in terms of sentence, in case, the conviction is upheld. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that the conviction of the appellants is well merited which does not call for any interference, therefore, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 12. First of all, the offence under Section 148 of the IPC is concerned which deals with the offense of rioting while armed with a deadly weapon. It states that anyone who is guilty of rioting, and is also armed with a deadly weapon or anything that could cause death if used as a weapon, can be punished with imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both. The question comes that whether the trial Court is justified to convict the appellants or not.? 13. Siyaram Sarthi examined as PW/3 who lives in Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur categorically stated in his cross-examination that he does not know what proceedings have been done by the police authorities at the spot of incident. He stated that while he reached the spot, the police have 7 CRA No. 1072 of 2004 & CRA No.34 of 2005 already gathered the sticks and rods (Lathi and Danda) etc. and police said to him that seizure was being made to testify the articles and asked him to sign on the seizure memo thereafter on the instruction of the police officials, he signed on the Exhibits – P/12 to P/21. He also stated that the police have not read out the seizure memo in front of him and without reading the same, he signed out the documents. Subsequently, this witness has been declared hostile. 14. From the above, it appears that PW/3 without knowing anything about the seizure, signed out the documents. It appears that the police have gathered the sticks and rods however, it is not reflected from the evidence that the appellants have used the same and rioting with the weapons like sticks and rods. Therefore, the trial Court while convicting the appellants under Section 148 is fully unjustified hence the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 15. The trial Court also convicted the appellants under Section 450/149 of the IPC which deals with house-trespass in order to commit an offense punishable with imprisonment for life. With regard to this, PW/1 – complainant has categorically stated that in his deposition that on receiving the information, he reached his house where his nephew and his four friends were hid themselves and he had seen that the a crowd consisting 250-300 people gathered outside of his house. This witness has never named the persons who trespassed his house. Thus, there appears to be a crowd of spectators not to trespass the house of the 8 CRA No. 1072 of 2004 & CRA No.34 of 2005 complainant therefore, this Court is of the opinion that in absence of any cogent and clinching evidence with regard to evidence of trespass, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted from the charge under Section 450/149 of IPC. 16. The second question for consideration is that whether the offence under Sections 436/149 and 435/149 is held reliable against the appellants or not. 17. PW/1 complainant in his cross-examination has categorically stated that the incident was occurred at the time of dusk and there was darkness, due to which he was unable to see that who put his house on fire the appellants or anyone else. He stated that there was crowd consisting the people of surrounding villages Dhamki, Beltara and others about 250- 300 people. Further in cross-examination, he denied that the people of Beltara forcefully entered in his house and put his house on fire. He voluntarily stated that the accused persons were leading the crowd in front of him, therefore he had only seen the present appellants. 18. After going through the above statement of PW-1, it is clear that the accused persons were stood in front of the complainant’s house and they were not trying to enter forcefully in his house. Apart from this, if it has got necessary furnishing needed for a building such as doors bar etc., Section 435 IPC is wide enough to include the entire incidental loss suffered by the owner. The offence under Sections 435 IPC is envisaged mischief by setting fire to any property other than building. Section 436 9 CRA No. 1072 of 2004 & CRA No.34 of 2005 IPC envisages mischief by fire to any building which is ordinarily used as a human dwelling including place of custody of property or place of person. An Ordinary thatched shed resting on bamboos or bricks pillar having no doors cannot be treated as building within the meaning of the term used under Section 436 IPC. 19. Therefore, in view of the facts stated above, in my opinion, the conviction under Sections 436/149 and 435/149 is also not made out against the appellants. 20. Now the question for consideration is whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellants under Section 307 of the IPC. 21. PW/7 – Ashish Rao Manik, injured, stated in his statement that the accused had forcefully entered in the house of PW-1 Dhruv Kumar, where he and his friends were hid, and beaten them with stones and sticks due to which, Gajendra Pandey had got severe head injury. He further stated that the accused had put the house on fire thereafter he and his friends came out from the house. As soon as they came out from the house the accused beaten them with stones and sticks due to which they sustained injuries. This witness stated that he also suffered injuries in his right hand, elbow, wrist and also got injured in head and due to which there was a lot of bleeding. 22. PW/9- Maqsood Khan, PW/10- Khusal Meshram and PW/13- Amjad Khan also reiterated the facts as deposed by PW-7 Ashish Rao. They stated that the accused set fire to the room in which they were lying and 10 CRA No. 1072 of 2004 & CRA No.34 of 2005 when they came out of the room due to fire, they beat them up. PW/9 in his statement has stated that he got injuries around his right eye and on the back due to assault by the accused. Also the other witnesses got injuries on different parts of their respective body. They also stated that due to burning inside the room, there was extreme heat. The whole body became hot. Even the clothes started getting scorched. When they came out of the door, the accused assulated them with sticks, rods and handguns, as a result they got injuries and it had become bruised. The accused wanted to break his hand and disfigure him. After beating, the accused tried to check with their feet whether the boy was alive or not. He was admitted to Sardar Patel Jila Hospital, Bilaspur for ten days for treatment. According to him, the accused left them saying that they were dead. 23. From the medical evidence adduced by Dr. Rajesh Shukla (PW/14), who conducted the medical examination of the injured persons and submitted its report vide Ex.P/34 to Ex. P/38, it is evident that Ashish Rao (P.W.7) reportedly sustained fractures to the elbow and ulna; Gajendra Pandey suffered a femur fracture; Khushal Meshram (P.W.10), Amzad Khan (P.W.13), and Maqsud (P.W.9) received minor injuries. Dr. Vikram Khetrapal (P.W.11) opined that Maqsud and Amzad Khan sustained simple injuries, while Dr. Chatterjee (P.W.8) confirmed that Khushal Meshram did not suffer any fracture. 24. In order to convict a person for offence under Section 307/149 of the IPC 11 CRA No. 1072 of 2004 & CRA No.34 of 2005 which deals with the attempt to commit murder. It outlines the punishment for individuals who perform an act with the intention or knowledge that, if death ensued, they would be guilty of murder. This means that even if the intended victim doesn't die, the act is still considered a serious offense under Section 307, it is sine qua non that offence must have been committed with intention, however, it is apparent that the incident has been occurred in a fit of rage and in anger, the appellants have unintentionally assaulted the victims. 25. Furthermore, the doctor has stated in his statement that it is not feasible to indicate as to which injury is caused by which weapons. The injuries mentioned in the medical report was not appearing in the vital part and the death is not possible immediately on account of the said injuries. 26. I have also gone through the evidence of Dr. Rajesh Shukla (PW/14) and Dr. S. Chatterjee (PW/8) and find that they had admitted that the injury was not enough dangerous to life as he did not think it necessary to do so. At the same time, as such I am unable to accept that the case would fall under Section 307 of IPC but in the light of the statement of the victim that he had remained in hospital for a few days due to the injuries caused to him, makes out a case of grievous hurt. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the the opinion that this is a fit case to impose conviction upon the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 326/149 of the IPC Act instead of Section 307/149 of the IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307/149 of IPC is altered to Section 326/149 of the IPC. 12 CRA No. 1072 of 2004 & CRA No.34 of 2005 27. As far as the conviction under Sections 325/149 (twice) and 323/149 (thrice) against the appellants is concerned, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts & evidence and found the said offences committed by the appellants stands proved beyond doubt leaving no scope for interference. Thus, the finding of the trial Court with regard to conviction of the appellants under these sections are hereby affirmed. 28. So far as, the sentence of the appellants under Sections 326/149, 325/149 (twice) and 323/149 (thrice) of the IPC is concerned, considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, the fact that the incident took place around 23 years ago, the age of the appellants at the relevant time between 19 to 45 years; they have no criminal antecedents; during pendency of these appeals the appellants were on bail; and did not misuse the liberty granted to them, and also considering the facts that the appellants have remained in jail for about 5 ½ months, and further keeping in view the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellants back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served, if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them under Sections 326/149, 325/149 (twice) and 323/149 (thrice) of the IPC.
Decision
29. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part. • The appellants are acquitted of the charges from Sections 148, 450/149, 436/149 and 435/149 of the IPC; 13 CRA No. 1072 of 2004 & CRA No.34 of 2005 • conviction of the appellants under Section 307/149 of the IPC is altered to Section 326/149 of the IPC, however, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain unaltered; • conviction under Section 323/149 (thrice) & 325/149 (twice) is affirmed; and • while maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 326/149, 323/149 (thrice) & 325/149 (twice), their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. • It is made clear that if the appellants failed to deposit the fine amount as stated supra, they shall suffer additional R.I. for two months. 30. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 31. 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/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $ Bhilwar /`Gowri