1 - Deepak Kumar Pandey, aged about 32 years, son of Laxman Prasad Pandey v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station manendragarh, District
Case Details
1 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2025:CGHC:12700 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1002 of 2007 1 - Deepak Kumar Pandey, aged about 32 years, son of Laxman Prasad Pandey, agriculturist, resident of village Ghutra Police Station Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. 2. Suryakant Pandey, aged about 30 years, son of Laxman Prasad Pandey, agriculturist, resident of village Ghutra Police Station Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. … Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the appellants :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Shailesh Ahuja Advocate with Mr. Palash Rajani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 17/03/2025 2 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.10.2007 passed in S.T.No. 86/2006 by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under : U/s 307/34 IPC : RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months each. 2.1 The case of prosecution, in brief, is that in the night of 30.09.2001 the accused Deepak Kumar Pandey and Suryakant Pandey with a common intention of causing death hit the victim Padum Rai with sickle and axe and caused fatal injuries to him. 2.2 According to the prosecution case, complainant Padumram is doing farm work in village Ghutra. He had withdrawn the loan of Rs. Rs.75,000/- from the State Bank under the Pradhan Mantri Rozgar Yojana (PMRY) to open a book shop. Accused Deepak had helped him in withdrawing the money. The allegation against the appellants is that out of Rs.75,000/-, the accused had given him only Rs.10,000/- and kept the remaining amount with them. When the complainant asked for the remaining sum, they used to quarrel with him. On the incident date 30.09.2001 in the night ( at 10.00 p.m.) when the complainant came to his house, his wife informed him that accused Deepak called him to come to accused Deepak’s house, on which, he went to the house of accused where certain altercation took place between him and accused regarding money received under the PMRY. When the accused was returning his home, at around 10.30 pm, accused Deepak armed with 3 a stick in his hand and accused Suryakant with an axe in his hand came near Shivam Pandey’s house and together attacked him with an axe on his head and back, due to which, the complainant fell down. Then accused Suryakant again attacked him on the ankle of his left leg and when the complainant tried to stop the attack with his hand, the index finger of his left hand got cut-off. When the complainant shouted for help , the villagers came there and on seeing them, the accused fled away. On a report being filed by victim Padumrai, crime was registered u/s 307/34 IPC against the appellants. After completing the investigation and complying with the necessary procedural requirements, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents to prove its case. The accused were examined u/s 313 CrPC wherein they 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 appellants as mentioned above. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants 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 RI for 7 years awarded to the appellants u/s 307/34 IPC, they had already remained in jail for 2 years. He submits that the incident took place in the year 2001 since then the appellants are facing the lis and this appeal is pending since 2007 and now they are aged 4 about more than 54 years. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents reported against them and prays that the sentence of the appellants under section 307/34 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice. 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. Dr. S. K. Tiwari (P.W.2) who examined the victim Padum Rai has stated that on examination, he found the following injuries (i) incised wound measuring 12 x 1 x 1.5 cm at the occipital region and there was a bone fracture; (ii) Incised wound on parietal region measuring 6 x 2 x 1 cm ; (iii) Incised wound 3 x 1 x 1cm on the left leg; (iv) incised wound 1 x 1 cm on the left leg; (v) The distal part of the left hand index finger was also cut. The doctor has opined that injuries 1 & 2 are dangerous to life and injuries 1, 2 & 5 are grievous in nature and all the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. However, after examining the X-Ray plate of the victim brought before him, he has stated that the outer layer of skull bone was fractured and the inner layer was not fractured. At para-8, the doctor has further stated that there is no internal injury in the head and on taking treatment, injuries 1 & 2 will not be dangerous to life on treatment. This witness at para 9 5 has further clearly stated that for this reason, the head injuries sustained by the victim are not dangerous to life. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statement of witnesses especially P.W.4 Padumrai, the complainant which stood firm by Dr. S.K. Tiwari (P.W.2) as also the statements of other witnesses namely P.W.1 Bhagwandin (father in law), P.W.3 Ramashanker (father of injured), P.W.5 Anupa, P.W.6 Dev vati, P.W.7 Mohan, P.W.8 Shravan Kumar, P.W.9 Rajaram, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC and it is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the sentence of the Appellants, considering the facts that the incident had taken place in September 2001 about 23 years ago and the maximum jail sentence awarded to them is RI for 7 years u/s 307/34 IPC, out of which, they had already remained in jail for about 2 years and are facing the lis since 2001 and further looking to their present age as also considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against them, in the interest of justice instead of again sending them to jail, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellants from 7 years R.I. to the period already undergone by them for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. It is made clear that the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. It is ordered accordingly. 6 10.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. Appellants are on bail. They need not again surrender in this case. However, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 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