Deepak Kumar Singh @ Deepak Nepali S/o. Late Kumar Singh Aged About 32 Years v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Vaishali Nagar, District - Durg
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:4654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.01.31 16:02:26 +0530 CRA No. 1359 of 2024 Deepak Kumar Singh @ Deepak Nepali S/o. Late Kumar Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o. Camp-1, Road Number-18, Near Mourya Coaching Center, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Vaishali Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No. 1471 of 2024 Gurmit Singh @ Sunny Hansa S/o Paramjeet Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Camp-1, Azad Mohalla, Chaita Maidan Near Police Station Vaishali Nagar Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P. S. Vaishali Nagar Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent CRA No. 1383 of 2024 Santosh Sharma Alias Mathura S/o Harishankar Sharma Aged About 36 Years R/o Camp-1, Sangram Chowk, Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent (Cause title, as taken from CIS) 2 : For Appellant -Deepak Kumar Singh @ Deepak Nepali
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Uttam Pandey & Mr. Vikas Kumar Bajpai, Counsel : For Appellant -Santosh Sharma @ Mathura Mr. Amit Nayak, Counsel For Appellant -Gurmit Singh @ Sunny : Hansa Mr. C.R. Sahu, Counsel For State/Respondent : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, G.A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment On Board 27/01/2025 1 Since all the three criminal appeals have arisen out of a common judgment dated 06.7.2024 passed by Upper Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (CG) in Sessions Trial No.142/2022, therefore, they are being heard analogously and decided by this Common Judgment. 2 These criminal appeals have been preferred against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.7.2024 passed by Upper Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (CG) in Sessions Trial No.142/2022, whereby the learned trial Court, after holding the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced each of them in the following manner:- Sl. No. 01. 02. 03. Conviction under Section 324/34 (twice) of IPC 25 (1-ख) (ख) of Arms Act, 1959 27 (2) of Arms Act, 1959 Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default Stipulation RI for 3-3-years Rs. 1000/- RI for 1-1-month RI for 3 years Rs. 1000/- RI for 01 month RI for 7 years Rs. 1000/- RI for 02 months All the substantive jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3 Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that on 20-5-2022 at about 11 O’ Clock in the night, appellants went to the daily needs shop of complainant- 3 Ram Mohan Sahu and purchased articles from his shop. They were making online payment but it could not succeed, therefore appellants requested that the said transaction be taken in credit. On this count, dispute arose between appellants and complainant & brother of complainant namely; Kajuram Sahu. During said altercation, appellants assaulted complainant and his brother by means of knife and wooden club with intention to kill them. On said altercation, complainant- Ram Mohan Sahu & his brother sustained injuries. Report was lodged by the complainant and FIR (Ex. P-1) was registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). During the Course of investigation, police recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., got examined both the injured persons, seized knife from Deepak Kumar Singh @ Deepak Nepali vide seizure memo (Ex. P-10) and wooden club from Santosh Sharma @ Mathura vide seizure memo (Ex. P-8) on the basis of memorandum statement (Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-7) of appellants, prepared spot map (Ex. P-2), arrested appellants vide arrest memo (Ex.P-11, Ex. P-12 & Ex. P-13), collected medical documents of victim along with X-ray etc. After usual investigation, charge sheet for offence under Sections 307, 294, 506, 323/34 of the IPC, Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959 was filed against all the appellants before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, District Durg, who in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Durg (CG), thereafter, it was transferred to Upper Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg, who tried the case and framed charges for the offence under Section 294, 506 part II, 323/34 & 307 of IPC and Sections 25 (1) (1-ख) (ख) & 27 (1) of the Arms Act against all the appellants, which they denied and sought trial. 4 In order to bring home the charges, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. Statements of accused persons /appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded in respect of 4 circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. Appellants denied all the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded not guilty & false implication, but they have not examined any witness in their defence. 5 Learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence available on record, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced all three appellants as mentioned in the paragraph - 2. Being aggrieved by the same, all three appellants have preferred separate appeals. 6 At the outset, learned counsel appearing for their respective appellants would submit that appellants do not want to press on conviction part of the impugned judgment, rather they confined their appeals and argument only on the sentence part. They would further submit that appellants are young boys. Dispute arose between them on account of trivial issue. Out of two victims, only Ram Mohan Sahu has sustained only one injury i.e. incised wound on his chin / lower mandible, which is reported to be simple in nature. Only one injury inflicted to other injured namely; Kajuram Sahu has also been reported to be simple in nature by Doctor. Thus, both the victims have sustained simple injuries. Learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that seizure of said knife from appellant- Deepak Kumar Singh has not been proved. Seizure of said wooden club from Santosh Sharma @ Mathura has also not been proved. Nothing has been seized from Gurmit Singh @ Sunny Hansa. They would further submitted that, during course of trial, all three appellants were in jail for about 2 months, thereafter, they are in jail since date of the judgment i.e. 06.7.2024. Thus, they have already remained in jail for more than 9 months, therefore, since learned trial Court itself has directed to run all the sentences concurrently, as such, jail 5 sentence of all three appellants may be reduced to the extent already undergone by them. 7 In reply, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State would submit that, though independent witnesses of seizure of knife and wooden club have not supported the case of the prosecution, but Investigating Officer (PW-7) has proved that he has seized knife on the basis of memorandum Statement (Ex. P-6) of accused Deepak Kumar Singh @ Deepak Nepali and wooden club has been seized on the basis of memorandum statement (Ex. P-7) of Santosh Sharma @ Mathura. Injury caused to Ram Mohan Sahu has been reported by doctor that the same has been caused by sharp edged weapon, therefore, sentence awarded by learned trial Court may be upheld. 8 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record along with record of the trial Court. 9 Ram Mohan Sahu (PW -1) and his brother namely; Kaju Ram Sahu (PW-2) are victims. They have stated in their deposition that, since appellants had assaulted them by means of knife and wooden club, therefore, Ram Mohan Sahu had sustained injury on his chin /lower mandible and Kaju Ram had sustained injury on his hand. Since victims were already knowing appellants and dispute occurred about 11 O’ Clock in the night in the shop of complainant, therefore, there is no question with regard to identity of appellants. Medical reports (Ex. P-14 ‘A’ & Ex. P-15) and Dr. B. Saxena (PW- 6) have also supported the fact that Kaju Ram Sahu had sustained injury on his right hand and Ram Mohan Sahu had sustained incised injury on his lower mandible/chin, which was caused to him by hard and sharp object. She has further deposed that injuries sustained to both the victims were simple in nature. Thus, it is found that the trial Court has rightly held that, assault was 6 made by appellants upon both the victims and aforesaid injuries are found to be caused by them to the victims. Although, counsel for the appellants had stated that they are not pressing their appeals and submissions on conviction part of the appellants, despite that, conviction of appellants made by the trial Court for the offences under Section 324/34 (twice) of IPC, Sections 25 (1-ख) (ख) & 27 (2) of the Arms Act, is found to be just and proper, hence, the same is affirmed. 10 So far as sentence part is concerned, dispute occurred on account of trivial issue all of a sudden. Injury caused by the appellants to both the injured (victims) are simple in nature. Appellants are young persons. No other antecedents have been proved by the prosecution against them. Having considered the above facts, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial Court seems to be disproportionate, therefore, it is required to be interfered. 11 Considering the aforesaid facts, instead of jail sentence awarded by learned trial Court for the offences under Section 324/34 (twice) of IPC and Sections 25 (1-ख) (ख) & 27 (2) of the Arms Act, each of the appellants is sentenced as under :- Sl. Conviction under Jail Sentence Fine Default No. Section Sentence Stipulation 01. 324/34 (twice) of RI for 1-1 year Rs.1000/- RI for 1-1- IPC month 02. 25 (1-ख) (ख) of RI for 1 year Rs.1000/- RI for 01 Arms Act, 1959 month 03. 27 (2) of Arms RI for 1 year Rs.1000/- RI for 01 Act, 1959 month All the substantive jail sentences are directed to run concurrently. Other directions of the trial Court shall remain intact. 7 12 The appellants are reported to be in jail. They are directed to serve the remaining sentence, if any. 13 Accordingly, all three appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 14 Let a copy of this judgment and original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar