Mandir Hasaud, Distt. Raipur (CG) v. State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Raipur, Distt. Raipur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21727 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 621 of 2007 1. 2. 3. 4. Jitendra Chelak, son of Bhagwat Chelak, aged about 34 years, Dilip, son of Bhagwat Chelak, aged about 25 years, Devanand, son of Bhagwat Chelak, aged about 32 years, Bhagwat Chelak, son of Sukhru Chelak, aged about 55 years, All are residents of Village-Muraithi, Police Station-Mandir Hasaud, Distt. Raipur (CG) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 09/05/2025 The appellants in this appeal are challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2 09.07.2007 passed by 11th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in ST No.450/2006 whereby each of the appellants stands convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 323/34 of Indian RI for 06 months, pay a fine of Penal Code for causing simple Rs.500/- and in default thereof to injury to Mohardas suffer additional SI for 03 months. Under Section 323/34 of Indian RI for 06 months, pay a fine of Penal Code for causing simple Rs.500/- and in default thereof to injury to Jama Bai. suffer additional SI for 03 months. Under Section 323/34 of Indian RI for 06 months, pay a fine of Penal Code for causing simple Rs.500/- and in default thereof to injury to Dashmat Bai. suffer additional SI for 03 months. Under Section 294 of Indian Penal To pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in Code. default thereof to suffer SI for 03 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 9.3.2006 at around 5 pm the accused persons abused the complainant party filthily, beat them with hands, fists and clubs as also threatened them of life. On report being lodged, the police commenced investigation, the injured persons were got medically examined and clubs and sticks used by the accused persons in commission of the offence were seized. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 of IPC. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506(2), 3 323/34, 323/34 and 323/34 of IPC, which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial. 03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 09 witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence, they examined Deendayal as DW-1 and Jambai as DW-2. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court while acquitting them of charges under Sections 506(2) of IPC, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 05. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the contradiction and omission in the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely PW-1, PW-2 and PW- 3. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case. According to Dr KS Rai (PW-6) the injuries suffered by the victims could be caused due to fall on hard and rough object. No independent witness was examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of all the charges. 4 Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellants submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact the incident took place in the year 2006; the appeal is pending since 2007; that they were on bail during trial as also during pendency of this appeal and never misused the liberty; they were in jail for 01 day; they may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellants submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellants by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the accused persons were charged under Sections 294, 506(2), 323/34, 323/34 and 323/34 of IPC, and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court while acquitting them of the charge under Section 506(2) of IPC, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 09. PW-1 Mohardas, injured complainant, states that on the date of incident when he returned from his work to his house, he saw that all 5 the four accused persons were filthily abusing and beating his wife and Bhabhi with hands and fists. On his intervention, he too was beaten by accused persons. Accused Jitendra caught hold of his neck and accused Bhagwat threw chilly powder in his eyes and then accused Devanand beat him with club. He somehow snatched the club from Devanand and started wielding it. He states that Johan, Premlal, Pramila Bai, Jambai and Dashmat Bai have witnessed the incident. 10. PW-2 Jambai, PW-3 Dashmat Bai (injured) and PW-8 Johan who are eyewitnesses to the incident have also supported the prosecution case and stated about the manner in which the incident occurred where the accused/appellants filthily abused and caused injury to Mohardas, Jambai and Dashmat Bai. The aforesaid ocular evidence also finds due corroboration from the medical evidence of Dr. KS Rai (PW-6) who examined the injured Mohardas, Jambai and Dashmat Bai and noticed corresponding injury on their body. In his opinion, the injures were caused by hard and blunt object and were simple in nature vide his reports Ex.P/2, P/3 & P/4 respectively. Thus, in view of the specific and unrebutted ocular evidence of the injured witnesses which is further fortified by the medical evidence, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 323/34 of IPC on three counts and 294 of IPC for causing simple hurt to Mohardas, Jambai and Dashmat Bai and abusing them filthily to the annoyance of others. 6 11. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the incident took place in the year 2006, appeal is pending since 2007; the appellants were on bail during trial and even during pendency of this appeal and did not misuse the liberty; they have remained in jail for 01 day; there is no minimum sentence prescribed under Sections 323 and 294 of IPC; this Court is of the opinion that at this stage no fruitful purpose would be served in sending them back to jail and the ends of justice would be met if they are sentenced to the period already undergone while keeping the fine amount imposed on them by trial Court with default sentence intact. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellants awarded by learned trial Court under Sections 323/34 on three counts and 294 of IPC is hereby maintained and the substantive jail sentence under Section 323/34 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine imposed on them by trial court with default sentence shall remain intact. They are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall continue for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.05.13 16:41:56 +0530 Khan