Nafr High Court
Case Details
AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:23:16 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:44347 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 691 of 2005 1 - Gokul Prasad S/o Khelan Jaiswal Aged About 38 Years. 2 - (Abated) Khelan Ram (Died) (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 06-05- 2025). 3 - Nakul S/o Khelan Ram Aged About 27 Years. 4 - Sanju S/o Khelan Ram Aged About 19 Years. All R/o Village- Lalpur, P.S. Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) versus ... Appellants. State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mungeli Distt. Bilsapur (C.G.). ... Respondent.
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant Nos.1 & 3 : Shri Suraj Patel, Advocate. For Appellant No.4 For State/Res. : Shri CK Sahu, Advocate. : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 01/09/2025 1. Vide order dated 11.03.2025, the present Appeal in respect of Appellant No.2-Khelan Ram already stood abated. 2 2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2005 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mungeli, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No.421/2004 whereby, learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: Conviction and Sentence in respect of Appellant No.1- Gokul Prasad and Appellant No.4- Sanju. Conviction Sentence Under Section 323 of IPC RI for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional RI for 3 months each. RI for 3 years each. Under Section 148 read with Section 149 of IPC Conviction and Sentence in respect of Appellant No.3-Nakul. Conviction Sentence RI for 3 years. Under Section 148 read with Section 149 of IPC Under Section 324 of IPC RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional RI for 3 months. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that in the night of 19.08.2004, at about 7:45 pm, injured namely Umendram Yadav (PW-9), who is resident of village Lalpur was returning from vegetable market of village Setganga along with Saukiram (PW-3), Sanat (PW-4), Ramkumar (PW-5) and Jittu (PW-6). While proceeding towards the road from Fasterpur to Kunda, which falls between the route of Setganga and Lalpur, the said persons 3 were engaged in a discussion about the village election that if accused/appellant namely Gokul Prasad were to be elected as village Sarpanch, then there will be no development in the village. At that time, Gokul Prasad, who was in his bicycle shop, heard the said discussion and got annoyed. Thereafter, all the accused persons obstructed the way of Umendram and abused him in filthy language in the name of mother and sister and assaulted him. Appellant No.3-Nakul by using axe (टांगी) and other accused persons/appellants by using club (लाठी) caused injury to the injured with an intention to kill him. Injured lodged an FIR on the next day with the police station Mungeli vide Ex.P/15, which was registered by Pitambar Gilhare, Sub Inspector (PW-14). Umendram (PW-9) was medically examined vide Ex.P/5 by Dr. Sanjay Agrawal (PW-8) who found the following injures: (1) sharp edged wounds on the right parietal bone parallel to each other, dimensions: (i) 4½ cm long x ½ cm wide bone deep (ii) 6 cm long x ½ cm wide bone deep (iii) 10 cm long x ½ cm wide bone deep. (2) swelling with crackling sound right forearm. (3) two linear contusions parallel to each other on the right thigh 6 cm long. (4) contusion on the right side of the abdomen. Injury No.1 was caused by hard and sharp object and other injuries were caused by hard & blunt object. Injured was also examined by Dr. GS Kanwar, Radiologist (PW-13), who vide his report- Ex.P/27 found no 4 bone injury on the X-ray. During investigation, the weapon which was used by the accused persons were seized vide Ex.P/17 to Ex.P/26. Patwari namely Vyasnarayan (PW-12) prepared the spot map vide Ex.P/1. Weapons seized were also sent for medical examination and the Doctor opined that the injuries could have been caused to the injured by the said weapons. 4. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. Appellants were tried for the offence under Sections 341, 148 r/w 149, 294, 506 (Part 2) and 307 r/w 149 IPC. Wherein, they abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. 5. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants pleaded false implication and did not adduce any defence evidence. 6. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 341, 294, 506 (Part 2), 307 r/w 149 of IPC. The trial Court found that the charge under Section 307 r/w 149 of IPC was not proved and instead of the said graver offence, held Appellant No.3-Nakul guilty of a lesser offence under Section 324 IPC and also held Appellant No.1-Gokul Prasad and Appellant No.4-Sanju guilty of a lesser offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. However, all the accused persons were found guilty of the offence under Section 148 r/w Section 149 of IPC and were sentenced as mentioned in initial paragraph of this judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that they are not pressing the 5 Appeal on merits and would confine their arguments only to the sentence part thereof. They submit that the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2004 and the appellants have no criminal antecedents. During trial, the appellants have remained in jail from 23.08.2004 to 30.10.2004 i.e. about 68 days and post conviction from 30.08.2005 to 06.09.2005, in total about 76 days. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants have already deposited the fine amount and they belong to one family and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed on the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 8. Per contra, counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submit that the same is well merited and does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 10. After having gone though the material available on record and the evidence of injured witness Umendram (PW-9) as also the statements of the eye witnesses of the incident namely Sauki (PW-3), Sanat (PW-4), Ramkumar (PW-5) and Jittu (PW-6), it is explicit that the accused persons caused injury to Umendram. Appellant No.3- Nakul caused injury to the injured by using sharp edged weapon axe (टांगी) and other accused persons/appellants by using hard and blunt object club (लाठी). The injuries were also found on the body of the injured/victim by Dr. Sanjay Agrawal (PW-8) who proved his report vide Ex.P/5. Furthermore, nothing has been elicited during the cross-examination of these witnesses 6 to disbelieve the version of the injured and other eye witnesses who have categorically supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the learned trial Court has rightly observed that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the said finding. 11. Accordingly, conviction imposed upon the appellants under Section 148 read with Section 149 of IPC and conviction imposed on the Appellant No.1- Gokul Prasad and Appellant No.4- Sanju under Section 323 of IPC and conviction of Appellant No.3-Nakul under Section 324 of IPC is hereby upheld. 12. As regards the sentence imposed on the appellants, keeping in view the fact that the incident took place in the year 2004 and also considering other attending facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering that the offences under Section 148, 324 and 323 IPC have been found proved by the trial Court and in appropriate cases, such offences are also punishable with fine & the fine amount has already been deposited by the appellants as stated by their counsel, and further the appellants have already undergone jail custody for about 76 days, there would be no purpose in sending the appellants back to jail. In my view, ends of justice would be served if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the sentence imposed upon the appellants is modified to the extent of the period already undergone, however, the fine amount imposed on the appellants by the trial Court shall remain intact. 7 14. Consequently, this Appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellants shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the CrPC. 15.Let a copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Avinash Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge