State of Chhattisgarh v. Sadhuram Yadav)
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 361 of 2019 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Palari, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., versus ... Appellant Sadhuram Yadav S/o Ghasiya Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Gitkera, Police Station- Palari, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent(s) : : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G. A. Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate along with respondent/accused (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 09/05/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal
Legal Reasoning
Procedure,1973 by the State, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25/10/2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 588/2015 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Sadhuram Yadav). 2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent of the charge punishable under sections 294, 325 and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). 3. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that, on 24/06/2015 a information has been given by the complainant to the Police Station – Palari that on the fateful day at 09:30 AM, the respondent accused filthily abused him and assaulted with the stick and stone 2 and threatened him to dire consequences. On the basis of said information an FIR was registered in crime No. 198/2015 vide Ex.P/1. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/2. The complainant was medically examined. Seizures were made. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Appellant was arrested and after completion of investigation the charge- sheet was filed before the Trial Court. The respondent was charged for an offence punishable under sections 294, 325 and 506 Part-II of the IPC who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, prosecution has examined 04 witnesses. The statement of the respondent under 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he pleaded false implication. 5. The learned trial court after appreciation of evidence available on record, acquitted the accused/respondent of all the charges.
Legal Reasoning
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the finding recorded by learned trial court is bad in law and it is not appreciated to its proper perspective, particularly the statement of Jatharam Yadav (PW-1), Bhagwan Singh (PW-2) and Tirath Ram (PW-3) have not been appreciated properly. He also submits that the appellant caused grievous hurt to the complainant, therefore, no leniency should be shown. 7. Learned counsel for the accused/ respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the respondent is rightly acquitted by the learned trial Court and meritorious findings of acquittal may not be disturbed. He further submits that the incident had occurred 10 years ago, the complainant and the respondent are the relatives and had previous enmity for all these years. He further submits that the respondent is aged about 60 years and having some ailment also, he may be imposed with fine only in case the appeal is allowed. He further submitted that the respondent/ accused may be given benefit of probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for short “Act of 1958”). 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Learned trial Court has observed that the complainant- Jatharam Yadav (PW-1) has not stated anything with regard to abusing or threatening for dire consequences and only stated that he sustained fracture on account of assault by Lathi. It has been further 3 observed that Bhagwan Singh (PW-2) and Tireethram (PW-3) have not spoken anything with regard to filthy words spoken by the appellant, threatening to dire consequences, neither any assault has been made by the appellant with the help of Lathi and these witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. Learned trial Court also observed that the seizure witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 have not stated with regard to seizure of the stones and sticks (danda), due to which the seizure of sticks and stones is also not proved. Therefore, learned trial Court came to a conclusion that the accused has caused annoyance to complainant by uttering obscene words in or near a public place. The accused caused grievous hurt to the complainant by assaulting him and accused caused criminal intimidation by threatening to kill him with intention of causing terror. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, he is acquitted of the charges under Sections 294, 325 and 506 Part II of IPC by the trial Court. The basic reasons assigned by learned trial Court is that the witnesses PW-2 & PW-3 have not supported the case of prosecution and seizure of stones and sticks has not been proved, therefore, benefit of doubt was extended. From perusal of statement of these witnesses including the complainant so far as the offence under Section 294 and 506 Part II of IPC has not been proved, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting from two charges but of course committed an error in acquitting the accused of charge under Section 325 IPC the reasons for which are as follows. 10. The incident has occurred on 24.06.2015 and at that point of time the First Information Report was lodged by the complainant himself describing the incident as he was assaulted by stick on his person and also stated that he was bitten on palm by the appellant and he was medically examined by the doctor who found the following injuries:- 1. cut wound measuring 1cm x 4 cm on left side of head. 2. swelling 4x5 cm on right paw. 3. swelling 5x6 cm was on right arm. 4. swelling 4x4 cm as on left side behind waist. 5. swelling 4x6 cm on right hand. 4 In the x-ray, the ulna bone of the right hand was found fractured. Injury No.5 was of serious nature. Medical report is Ex. P-4 and X-ray report is Ex. P-5. 11. Undoubtedly, two of the witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Since it is a case where the accused/appellant has been charged under Section 325 IPC also and in these circumstances the statement of the injured is of paramount consideration. If the overall evidence of the injured is seen, he is stated to have suffered number of injuries on his person including the fracture of the ulna bone of right hand. The said injuries are said to have been caused by the accused/appellant with the help of club. Thus though two witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution but looking to the categorical statement of the injured, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court acquitting the respondent/accused of the charge under Section 325 IPC do not appear to be well founded. Being so the finding so recorded as regards the acquittal of the offence under Section 325 IPC are liable to be set aside. Of course the statement of two witnesses who have not supported the case of prosecution may be beneficial to the accused so far as his acquittal of the other charges is concerned and that being the position the finding of the trial Court to that effect appears to be fully justified and are hereby maintained. 12. In aforesaid view of the matter, the acquittal of the accused/ respondent under Sections 294, 506 Part II IPC is hereby maintained however, the judgment impugned so far as it relates to the acquittal under Section 325 IPC, is hereby set aside and the accused/ respondent is held to be guilty for the said offence. Held accordingly. 13. As regards sentence, looking to the fact that the incident is quite old and no minimum sentence has been prescribed for the offence, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the accused/ respondent is sentenced to undergo 7 days of imprisonment. The accused/respondent shall also be required to pay fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- out of which Rs.5000/- shall be paid to the injured/ complainant as compensation in terms of Section 396 of BNSS, 2023. It is made clear that if the amount of fine as directed is not deposited within a period of 3 months from today, he shall be required to undergo further imprisonment for 5 days. 5 14. This leads me to the submission of learned counsel for the appellant as to whether appellant can be extended benefit of Act of 1958. In this context it would be expedient to notice Section 4 of Act of 1958 as under:- “4. Power of Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.- (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the Court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years, as the Court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Provided that the Court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the Court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond. (2)Before making any order under sub-section (1), the Court shall take into consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the case. (3)When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the Court may, if it is of opinion that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the offender. (4)The Court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the Court may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by the offender. 6 (5)The Court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the probation officer concerned. 15. Section 4 of Act of 1958 and Section 360 of CrPC has come up for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ratan Lal Vs. State of Punjab, 1965 (1) Criminal Law Journal 360, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 4 held as under:- “4. The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him. The Act distinguishes offenders below 21 years of age and those 677 above that age and offenders who are guilty of committing an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and those who are guilty of a lesser offence. While in the case of offenders who are above the age of 21 years, absolute discretion is given to the court to release them after admonition or on probation of good conduct, in the case of offenders below the age of 21 years an injunction is issued to the court not to sentence them to imprisonment unless it is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offenders, it is not desirable to deal with them under ss. 3 and 4 of the Act.” 16. Further in case of Ved Prakash Vs. State of Haryana, (1981) 1 SCC 447 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “We must emphasize that sentencing an accused person is a sensitive exercise of discretion and not a routine or mechanical prescription acting on hunch. The Trial Court should have collected materials necessary to help award a just punishment in the circumstances. The social background and the personal factors of the crime-doer are very relevant although in practice Criminal Courts have hardly paid attention to the social milieu or the personal circumstances of the offender. Even if S. 360 Cr.P.C. is not attracted, it is the duty of the sentencing Court to be activist enough to collect such facts as have a bearing on punishment with a rehabilitating slant. The absence of suck materials in the present case has left us with little assistance even from the counsel. Indeed members of the bar also do not pay sufficient attention to these legislative provisions which relate to dealing with an offender in such manner that he becomes a non-offender. We emphasise this because the legislations 7 which relate to amelioration in punishment have been regarded as 'Minor Acts' and, therefore, of little consequence. This is a totally wrong approach and even if the Bar does not help, the Bench must fulfill the humanising mission of sentencing implicit in such enactments as the Probation of offenders Act. In the present case, the offender is a young person and his antecedents have no blemish. His life is not unsettled or restless and the report indicates that he is an agriculturist, pursuing a peaceful vocation. His parents are alive and he has a wife and children to maintain. These are stabilizing factors in life. A long period of litigation and the little period of imprisonment suffered? will surely serve as a deterrent. We are mindful of the fact that a fire-arm has been used by the appellant and we cannot sleep over the gravity of the offence. Nevertheless, the report of the Probation officer states that the appellant is not given to any bad habits or stresses of poverty. A land dispute led to the crime and that does not survive any longer. 17. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Maharastra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldeep Singh and others, (2004) 7 SCC 659 has observed as under:- “ The learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the incident is of the year 1990. The parties are educated and neighbours. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be granted to the accused. The prayer made on behalf of the accused seems to be reasonable. The incident is more than 10 years old. The dispute was between the neighbours over a trivial issue of cleaning of drainage. The incident took place in a fit of anger. All the parties are educated and also distantly related. The incident is not such as to direct the accused to undergo sentence of imprisonment. In our opinion, it is a fit case in which the accused should be released on Probation by directing them to execute a bond of one year for good behaviour. 18. From the record it is not in dispute that the incident has occurred on 24.06.2015 almost 10 years before. The respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court. In this appeal, he is being represented regularly. At the time of incident the respondent was aged about 50 years and presently he is in his early sixties. The complainant and respondent are relative. The complainant never admitted in hospital. It is not brought to the notice that respondent had any criminal antecedent. Possibility of his reform can’t be ruled out. This Court has granted compensation to the complainant. Considering all the mitigating circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958 can 8 be extended to respondent. Hence, instead sending respondent to jail, he is given benefit of Section 4 of Act of 1958. The respondent shall file one surety to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- coupled with personal bond to the effect within 3 months from today that he shall not commit any offence and shall observed good behaviour and shall maintain peace during the period of one year, if there is breach of any conditions or respondent fails to deposit the fine amount within the stipulated time, he shall be subjected to undergo sentence as awarded by this Court. Respondent need not surrender for the present. Order accordingly. 19. Appeal thus allowed as indicated above. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.05.16 16:40:09 +0530 Parul