Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.02.28 16:45:12 +0530 2025:CGHC:9909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2016 1. Sukalchand S/o Sambal Das Deshlahre, Aged About 57 Years, 2. Smt. Jamul W/o Sukalchand, Aged About 54 Years, 3. Mahendra Kumar S/o Sukul Chand Deshlahre, Aged About 36 Years, 4. Mahesh Kumar S/o Sukul Chand Deshlahre, Aged About 26 Years,
Legal Reasoning
5. Smt. Chandrika W/o Trilok Chand Barle, Aged About 27 Years, 6. Smt. Usha W/o Mahendra Kumar Deshlahre, Aged About 30 Years, 7. Smt. Ashlekha D/o Sukal Chand Deshlahre, Aged About 24 Years, 8. Kumari Bindu D/o Sukal Chand, Aged About 22 Years, All are R/o Village Dumardih Khurd, Police Station Ghumka, Rev. and Civil District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Versus ... Applicants • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lalbag, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Order on Board 27/02/2025 1. This present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.02.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Atrocity), Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. in Criminal Appeal 2 No.40/2012, whereby the present applicants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 325/149 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') Under Section 325/149 of IPC Under Section 323/149 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.200/- each, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo rigorous additional imprisonment for 15 days to each applicant. Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.200/- each, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo rigorous additional imprisonment for 15 days to each applicant. Rigorous Imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.200/- each, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo Additional rigorous imprisonment for 15 days to each applicant. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.11.2008 at about 6:30 pm, due to land dispute, the present applicants entered into the house of the complainant Tuka Ram (PW-01) and abused him and his wife and son in filthy language, and thereafter, committed marpit with them, due to which the complainant suffered simple injuries on his head and hand, and his wife Birjha Bai (PW-03) and son Murlidas (PW-02) suffered grievous injuries on their head and hand. Thereafter, Tuka Ram (PW-01) reported the matter to the Police Station – Ghumka, pursuant to which, FIR (Ex-P8) was registered against the applicants. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide (Ex-P3) and injured persons were sent to medical examination where Dr. Rajesh Sadani 3 (PW-13), Medical Officer, examined them and gave his MLC reports vide Exs-P-20, P-21 & P-22. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323 & 325 of IPC was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). The applicants abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the applicants of the charges 147, 148, 294 and 506-II of the IPC, however, convicted them for the offence under Sections 325/149, 325/149 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.200/- each, and further convicted them under Section 323/149 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one month with fine of Rs.200/- each, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional R.I. for 15 days. The said judgment of JMFC was challenged by the present applicants in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.02.2016, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press this revision on conviction part of the applicants, but confines his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him, is on higher side. He further submits that applicants have remained in jail for 08 days i.e. from 17/02/2016 to 24/02/2016, they have no criminal antecedents and they are facing lis since 2008, i.e. more than 16 years. He also submits that the fine amount has already been deposited with the concerned trial Court. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already 4 undergone by them. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjappa vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 6 SCC 231. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgments. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the statements of complainant Tuka Ram (PW-1), Murlidas (PW-2) and Birjha Bai (PW-3) coupled with the medical evidence of Dr. Rajesh Sadani (PW-13) and Dr. D.R. Dhurve (PW-12), who proved the MLC reports vide Exs-P-20, P-21 & P-22 and the other evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a correct finding and I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of applicants. 9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manjappa (Supra) and also considering the fact that applicants have undergone jail sentence for a period of eight days, they are facing the lis since 2008 and there are no criminal antecedents against them, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them, while enhancing the fine amount from Rs.200/- each to total Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 325/149 of IPC (two counts). Ordered accordingly. However, the fine amount of Rs.200/- each, as was imposed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, for the offence under Section 323/149 of IPC shall 5 remain intact. Thus, the total fine amount payable by each applicant in the above Sections is Rs.5,200/-. Enhanced fine amount shall be deposited by each applicant by 31st March, 2025 before the concerned trial Court. Out of the total fine amount, Rs.15,000/- each shall be paid to the victims/injured Murlidas (PW-2), and Birjha Bai (PW-3) and Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the complainant/injured Tuka Ram (PW-1) as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C by the concerned Trial Court after due verification. The fine amount already deposited by the applicants, if any, shall be adjusted accordingly. If the enhanced fine amount is not deposited by the applicants within the stipulated time, then they shall suffer additional R.I. for one month. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine sentence is also affirmed. 11. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Prakash