Balod, Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Balod, Distt. Balod, C
Case Details
1 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2025:CGHC:1744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1162 of 2015 1 - Nageshwar Deshmukh S/o Late Jawaharlal Ji Deshmukh Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Pinkapar, P.S. Dewari, Tahsil Doundilohara, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Dinesh Deshmukh S/o Late Jawaharlal Ji Deshmukh Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Pinkapar, P.S. Dewari, Tahsil Doundilohara, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Balod, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer ACQA No. 79 of 2015 Sushama Deshmukh W/o Shri Rajeshwar Deshmukh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Pinkapar, Police Station- Dewari, Tahsil- Doundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Nageshwar Deshmukh, S/o Late Shri Jawahar Lal Deshmukh Aged About 53 Years R/o Village- Pinkapar, Police Station- Dewari, Tahsil- Doundilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, Present Address- Ruwabandha Sector Quarter No.214 B, Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
2 - Dinesh Deshmukh S/o Late Shri Jawahar Lal Deshmukh Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Pinkapar, Police Station- Dewari, Tahsil- Doundilohara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh, Present Address- 2 Ruwabandha Sector Quarter No.214 B, Bhilai Nagar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - State of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Police Out Post- Pinkapar, Police Station- Dewari, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16 .0 4 .202 5 1. 2. Proceedings of these matters have been taken through video conferencing. Since both these Criminal Revision filed by the petitioners as well as Acquittal Appeal filed by the complainant arise out of one and same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.04.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod, in Criminal Appeal No. 110/2014, they are clubbed and
Decision
heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Criminal Revision No. 1162 of 2015 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 06.04.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod, in Criminal Appeal No. 110/2014 arising out of judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daundilohara, District – Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 94 of 2009, whereby the learned appellate Court has partly allowed the 3 appeal filed by the accused Nageshwar Deshmukh and Dinesh Deshmukh by converting the conviction of the accused Nageshwar Deshmukkh (accused No.1) under Section 325 of IPC to Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and so far as the accused Dinesh Deshmukh (accused No.2) is concerned, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for one month awarded for the conviction under Section 325 of IPC has been converted as sentence till rising of the Court by enhancing fine of Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/-, however, affirmed the finding whereby both the accused have been convicted under Section 323 (two times) and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for two-two months each. 4. Acquittal appeal No. 79 of 2015 filed by the complainant under Section 372 of the CrPC is directed against same order dated 06.04.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod, in Criminal Appeal No. 110/2014 arising out of judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daundilohara, District – Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 94 of 2009, whereby the learned appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused Nageshwar Deshmukh and Dinesh Deshmukh by converting the conviction of the accused Nageshwar Deshmukkh (accused No.1) under Section 325 of IPC to Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and so far as the accused Dinesh 4 Deshmukh (accused No.2) is concerned, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for one month awarded for the conviction under Section 325 of IPC has been converted as sentence till rising of the Court by enhancing fine of Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/-. 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that complainant Sushma Deshmukh's husband Rajeshwar has three brothers, out of which Nageshwar and Dinesh live separately and complainant Sushma Deshmukh also lives separately with her husband. Complainant Sushma's father-in-law Jawahar had got a handpump installed in the house when he was alive, in which after getting the consent of both the families and getting it done by the villagers, the complainant fills water between 6-8 a.m. and Nageshwar and Dinesh fill water after 8 a.m. On 04.05.2008 at 5:45 a.m. accused Dinesh Deshmukh was filling water, when complainant Sushma Deshmukh refused to let him fill water, then Dinesh Deshmukh and Nageshwar abused her and beat her with their fists, seeing which complainant Sushma's husband Rajeshwar and his Son Akash came who were also beaten with fists. Due to the beating by the accused, complainant Sushma suffered injuries on her back, right leg, knee, left knee and pain in her throat. Her son Akash suffered injuries under his left hand and husband Rajeshwar suffered injuries on his right leg, knee and wrist of left hand. The above incident was seen and heard by Dwarika Rajput, daughter-in-law 5 of Kushal. The complainant Sushma lodged a report of the above incident at the Pinkapaar Police Station. It was registered in Roz. Sanha No. 55 dated 04.05.2008 and on the basis of Roz. Sanha, a First Information Report was registered in zero at the Pinkapaar Police Station and sent to the Deori Police Station. Then a First Information Report was registered in Crime No. 53/2008 at the Deori Police Station and after investigation, the charge sheet was presented in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daundilohara, District – Balod (C.G.). 6. When the chargesheet was read out and explained to the accused, the accused denied committing the crime. When the accused under section 313 CrPC were examined, the accused said that they were innocent and were being falsely implicated. No evidence has been presented by the accused in their defence. 7. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents i.e. Exs. P-1 to P-12. 8. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 10.11.2014, convicted the accused under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for one-one month each and further convicted under Section 323 (two times) of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they are directed to undergo RI for two-two 6 months each. 9. The said order was challenged by the accused before the Court of Sessions Judge, Balod, District – Balod, wherein the appellant after hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on the basis of materials available on record, partly allowed the appeal by converting the conviction of the accused Nageshwar Deshmukkh (accused No.1) under Section 325 of IPC to Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and so far as the accused Dinesh Deshmukh (accused No.2) is concerned, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for one month awarded for the conviction under Section 325 of IPC has been converted as sentence till rising of the Court by enhancing fine of Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/-, however, affirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court whereby both the accused have been convicted under Section 323 (two times) and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for two- two months each. Hence, this CRR No. 1162/2025 has been filed by the accused and Acquittal Appeal No. 79/2025 has been filed by the complainant Sushma Deshmukh. 10. Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the revisionist in CRR No. 1162 of 2015 submitted that the learned appellate Court as well as trial Court both have erred in law as well as in facts in convicting and sentencing the applicants/accused. He further submitted that learned appellate Court ought to have acquitted the 7 applicants from the offences of Section 325, 323 of IPC as the applicants and the husband of the complainant are real brothers and the cse is of false implication and ingredients of aforesaid Sections are not made out from the evidence led by the prosecution. 11. Mr. Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in ACQA No. 79 of 2015 submitted that the conviction of the respondent No.1/ accused No.1 (Nageshwar Deshmukh) under Section 325 of IPC was justified in view of the evidence available on record, and therefore, the conviction awarded to him under Section 325 of IPC should not have been converted into conviction under Section 323 of IPC. He further submitted that so far as the sentence awarded to respondent No.1 / accused No.2 (Dinesh Deshmukh) for conviction under Section 325 of IPC is concerned, the conversion of sentence from one year rigorous imprisonment to sentence till rising of the Court is illegal and perverse. 12. On the other hand, Ms. Ankita Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 14. From perusal of the impugned order dated 06.04.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 2014, it transpires 8 that while partly allowing the appeal preferred by the appellants / revisionist herein, it has been observed that the appellants and the injured witnesses are members of the same family and the said incident took place over a trivial dispute over filling water in the borewell. The appellants have no previous criminal record and the appellant Nageshwar Deshmukh is a former employee of Bhilai Steel Plant. Therefore, after considering the mitigating circumstances of the incident, learned Sessions has partly allowed the appeal by converting the conviction of the accused Nageshwar Deshmukkh (accused No.1) under Section 325 of IPC to Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and so far as the accused Dinesh Deshmukh (accused No.2) is concerned, the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for one month awarded for the conviction under Section 325 of IPC has been converted as sentence till rising of the Court by enhancing fine of Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 3,000/-, however, affirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court whereby both the accused have been convicted under Section 323 (two times) and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for two- two months each. 15. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, as well as the finding recorded by the appellate Court, I am of the considered opinion that the appellate Court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 9 16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 17. The Appellate Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution, recorded the finding that the appellants and the injured witnesses are members of the same family and the said incident took place over a trivial dispute over filling water in the borewell. The appellants have no previous criminal record and the appellant Nageshwar Deshmukh is a former employee of Bhilai Steel Plant. Therefore, after considering the mitigating circumstances of the incident, learned Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants as mentioned earlier. 10 18. After considering the materials available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Appellate Court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference. 19. Accordingly, both Criminal Revision filed by the accused/ revisionist as well as Acquittal Appeal filed by the complainant against acquittal of the accused/respondents from the aforesaid offences are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Chandra