High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2025.03.06 16:57:59 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR Criminal Revision No. 919 of 2016 1. Kaushal Kumar Sande S/o Mahendra Prasad Sande, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Mahadev Nagar Chagorabhata Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur Revenue and Civil District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 2. Mahendra Sande S/o Ganesh Pratap Sande, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Village Tosgaon, Police Station Basana, Revenue and Civil District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, 3. Lilesh Kumar Dadsena S/o Chamaruram Dadsena, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Satyam Vihar Colony Raipura, Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur Revenue And Civil District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, versus ... Applicants • State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Kanker and Police Station Narharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For Applicants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. R.N. Pusty, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, Judgment on Board 05/03/2025 1. This present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.07.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh, in Criminal Appeal No.03/2016, whereby the present applicants have been convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced them till rising of the Court with fine of Rs.300 + Rs.300 = Rs.600/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, additional simple imprisonment for one month. 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the date of incident i.e. 28.07.2013, the present applicants entered in to the house of the victim/complainant – Sushila Sinha (PW-01) and her husband Nekram Sinha (PW-02) and abused them in filthy language, thereafter, they committed marpit with them, due to which they sustained injuries over their body. Thereafter, the complainant Sushila Sinha (PW-01) reported the matter to the Police Station, pursuant to which, FIR (Ex-P1) was registered. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker, (C.G.). The applicants abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The Court of CJM, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the applicants of the charges under Sections 452, 294 and 506- Part II of the IPC, however, convicted the applicants for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them till rising of the Court with fine of Rs.600/- each (each applicant shall pay Rs.300/- + 300/- to both the injured persons), in default of payment of fine amount, additional simple imprisonment for one month. The said judgment was challenged by the present applicants in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.07.2016, maintained the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon the applicants and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press the revision on conviction part of the applicants, but confines his argument to the sentence of the applicants, which is not sustainable. He further submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is perverse and contrary to law and the applicants have wrongly been sentenced till rising of the Court. In this regard, he drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 22 wherein the trial Court specifically 3 observed that ‘considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not seem fair to punish the accused persons with imprisonment, rather, the purpose of justice is accomplished by mere fine’, despite that observation, the trial Court has sentenced the applicants till rising of the Court. He further submits that applicants have no criminal antecedents, they are facing lis since July, 2013, i.e. for more than 12 years and further, at present, they are old aged persons. He further submits that applicants have already been acquitted of charges under Section 452, 294 and 506-Part II of the IPC. This apart, the fine amount has already been deposited with the concerned trial Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the sentence i.e. till rising of the Court as awarded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court against the applicants may be set-aside. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the statements of victim/complainant Sushila Sinha (PW-01), Nekram Sinha (PW-02), coupled with the medical evidence given by Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh (PW-07) 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 of till rising of the Court by the learned Courts, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the fact that the trial Court in paragraph 22 of its judgment has clearly observed that it would not be appropriate to punish the accused persons with imprisonment, rather, the purpose of justice would be accomplished by mere fine and despite the said observation, the applicants have been sentenced till 4 rising of the Court, further, the applicants have no criminal antecedents, they are facing lis since July, 2013, i.e. for more than 12 years and, at present, they are old aged persons, this apart, the fine amount has already been deposited with the concerned trial Court, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of ‘till rising of Court’ awarded to the applicants is set-aside, however, the fine sentence is affirmed. Ordered accordingly. 10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the applicants under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and the sentence of ‘till rising of the Court’ imposed upon the applicants by the trial Court is hereby set-aside. 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