Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.02.25 18:10:00 +0530 2025:CGHC:9736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 177 of 2008 1. Laxmi Prasad Patel, S/o Makardhwaj Patel, Aged about 35 years, R/o Village Gadhpatani, Police Station Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). 2. Virendra Kumar Patel, S/o Makardhwaj Patel, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Gadhpatani, Police Station Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). 3. Hem Kumar Kaivarta, S/o Lakeshwar Kaivarta, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Gadhpatani, Police Station Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Appellants versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate on behalf of For Respondent/State : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Judgment on Board Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal 25/02/2025 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.02.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.), in Special Sessions 2 Trial No. 12/2007 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : Conviction Sentence R.I. for 02 months with fine of Rs. U/s 323/34 of IPC 500/-, in default of payment of fine U/s 452 of IPC U/s 294 of IPC amount additional R.I. for 15 days. R.I. for 04 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 03 month. R.I. for 01 months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 07 days. (All the sentences were directed to run concurrently) 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.08.2005 at about 2-3 Pm, the complainant namely Amritlal Bahra was not in his house, at that time the Ex-Sarpanch Laxmi Patel and hem Kumar Kewat entered in the house of the complainant and push the wife of the complainant due to which she fall down and thereafter they have used the abusive language and assaulted the father of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant has lodged report against the present appellants at Police Station-Basna and the offence was registered against the present appellants under Section 452, 294, 506 Part-2, 323 read with section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the complainant has examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 07 documents. The statement of the appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the 3 circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case and have examined 01 witness and exhibited 06 documents in their defence. 4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.02.2008, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 506 Part-2 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act and convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5 Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2005, and thereby more than 19 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellants namely Laxmiprasad Patel (A-1) is aged about more than 54 years, Virendra Kumar Patel (A-2) is aged about more than 49 years and Hem Kumar Kaivarta is aged about more than 59 years and the appellants have already remained in jail for about 16 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. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellants. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Complainant (PW-1), Shivcharan Behera (PW-2), Pushplata (PW-3), M.K. Mishra (PW-5), Devkumar (PW-6) and D.S. Negi (PW-8), establish the involvement of the appellants 4 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 offence punishable under Sections 452, 294 and 323/34 of IPC. 9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the incident had taken place on 05.08.2005 about more than 19 years ago and the appellants have already remained in jail for about 16 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.
Decision
10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellants to jail. Hence, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them i.e., 16 days instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 04 years for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC, for 1 month for the office punishable U/s 294 of IPC and for 02 months for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of IPC. However, the fine amount imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court shall remain intact. 11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 12 Appellants are on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 13 Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Sourabh P.