1 - Dulas Ram, Son of Rohil Lal aged about 36 years, R/o Village v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Gendatola, District Rajnandgaon
Case Details
1 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2025:CGHC:14385 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 794 of 2007 1 - Dulas Ram, Son of Rohil Lal aged about 36 years, R/o Village Bital, Police Station Gendatola, District Rajnandgaon (C.G). … Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Gendatola, District Rajnandgaon ... Respondent(s) For the appellant For the State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 25/03/2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and 2 order of sentence dated 29.08.2007 passed in S.T.No. 80/2006 by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: 01. Under section 325 for IPC of assaulting Madhav : RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 1 month. additional 02. Under section 325 of for IPC assaulting Reej Bai : RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of simple fine, imprisonment for 1 month. additional (Both the sentences are to run concurrently) By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 307, 307 IPC holding that the offence u/s 307, 307 IPC is not proved against him. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant was accused of committing offence under section 307, 307 IPC for causing fatal injuries to complainant Madho @ Madhav Sahu and his wife Reej Bai. According to the prosecution case, complainant Madhav and accused Dulas Ram are real brothers and there was a land dispute between them. On the date of incident 10.06.2006 in the evening when the complainant and his wife were constructing a boundary wall of mud in their fields, the accused came there and started demolishing the boundary, on which, the dispute had further aggravated between them which led to assault on each other in which accused hit the complainant and his wife with sharp edged weapon like Spade (Fauda) As a result 3 of which, complainant Madhav and his wife Reej Bai sustained grievous head injuries. On a report being filed by complainant, the offence u/s 307, 307 IPC was registered against the appellant for assaulting complainant and his wife. After completing the investigation and on complying with other procedural requirements, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 16. documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para-1. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 3 years awarded to him on both the counts respectively u/s 325 IPC, he had already remained in jail for about 24 days. He submits that the incident took place in the year 2006, since then the appellant is facing the lis and this appeal is pending since 2007 and now he is aged about more than 53 years. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents reported against him and accordingly prays that the sentence of the appellant under section 325 of IPC on both the counts may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 4 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. The indisputable fact is that the appellant and complainant Madho both are real brothers and there exists a land dispute between them which led to the incident. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of complainant/injured Madho (P.W.1) and his wife Reej Bai (P.W.2) which further stood firm by the Dr. Rajan Tiwari (P.W.12), this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 325, 325 of IPC and it is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the sentence of Appellant Dulas Ram, considering the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2006 about 18 years ago and the maximum jail sentence awarded to him is RI for 3 years u/s 325 IPC for assaulting victim Madho and R.I., for 3 years u/s 325 IPC for assaulting Reej Bai, out of which, as stated by learned counsel the appellant had already remained in jail for about 24 days and is facing the lis since 2006 and further looking to the nature of dispute and his present age as also considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against him, in the interest of justice and in 5 the considered opinion of this Court, instead of again sending him to jail, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant from 3 years R.I. to the period already undergone by him under Section 325 of IPC and enhance the fine of Rs.500/- as imposed by the trial Court to Rs.12000/- on each count (Total Rs.24,000/-). In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo additional RI for 1 year. If any fine amount deposited before the trial Court shall be adjusted in the enhanced amount which is hereby imposed by this Court. It is ordered accordingly. 10.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. Appellant is on bail. He need not again surrender in this case. However, if the fine is not deposited within 90 days from today, the appellant’s bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the fine amount will be recovered as per the law. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao 6