Akash Janghel @ Babu S/o Sanjay Janghel Aged About 21 Years R/o Lodhipara, Near v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Ganj, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:13135 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1701 of 2022 Akash Janghel @ Babu S/o Sanjay Janghel Aged About 21 Years R/o Lodhipara, Near Khusboo Dormitory, P.S.- Ganj, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Ganj, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1654 of 2022 Yogesh Rao @ Chirag Rao S/o Balkrishna Rao, Aged About 21 Years R/o Station Road, Behind Mahatma Gandhi College, Raut Para, Lodhipara, P.S. Ganj, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ganj, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 2
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant in CrA No.1701/2022 : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate. For Appellant in CrA No.1654/2022 : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/03/2025 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.266/2021, whereby the appellant, namely, Akash Janghel @ Babu has been convicted and sentenced in following manner :- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 307/34 of RI for 7 years and fine of the Indian Penal Code Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months. Under Section 452/34 of RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-, the Indian Penal Code in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months. Under Section 506- Part-II RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-, of the Indian Penal Code in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months. Under Section 25(1)(1-b) RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-, (b) of Arms Act in default of payment of fine to (All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently) further undergo RI for 2 months. 3 So far as applicant, namely, Yogesh Rao @ Chirag Rao is concerned, he has been convicted and sentenced in following manner:- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 307/34 of RI for 7 years and fine of the Indian Penal Code Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months. Under Section 452/34 of RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-, the Indian Penal Code in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months. Under Section 25(1)(1-b) RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-, (b) of Arms Act in default of payment of fine to (All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently) further undergo RI for 2 months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on February 3, 2021, complainant Chatur Mongraj lodged a report at Ganj Police Station, Raipur, alleging therein that he had been working as a Manager at Sri Balaji Guest House for about four months. On the same day, around 12:55 P.M., two individuals entered into the hotel and attacked the hotel owner, Sandeep Janghel, in his cabin. One of the assailants, Akash Janghel alias Babu, threatened to kill Sandeep and stabbed him with a sharp edged object in his abdomen, thigh, and back. The accused then fled the scene of occurrence. Sandeep/injured was taken to Makkahara Hospital for treatment. Based on this complaint, the Ganj Police Station registered an FIR against Akash Janghel 4 alias Babu and another under Sections 452, 294, 506, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The Investigating Officer, Shri Derha Ram Vinayak, Sub-Inspector (ASI-9), visited the crime scene and prepared a Site Map (Ex. P- 9) based on the complainant Chatur Mongraj's guidance. The injured person, Sandeep Janghel, was medically examined by Dr. Devendra Nayak (PW-8) at Sri Balaji Hospital, Mova, Raipur, and Medical Documents vide Exs. P-10 and P-11 were obtained and the injured sustained following injuries:- (I) 3 x 2 cm stab wound was found on the left side of the stomach. (ii) 2 cm stab wound was found on the right thigh and the injured's stomach injury was bleeding. (iii) The intestine inside the abdomen was ruptured and fecal material was present inside the stomach. (iv) 1.5 cm was found in the middle part of the large intestine of the injured and from there blood and fecal material was accumulated in the stomach. (v) A hole was also found in the omentum. As per opinion of the doctor (PW-8), type of injury is dangerous and life threatening. 4. The accused were questioned in the presence of witnesses, and their statements were recorded (Exs. P-2 and P-3). Based on these statements, the accused were found to be in possession of a sharp edged object and a buttoned knife, which were seized (Exs. P-5 and P-6). The accused failed to produce valid documents explaining the possession of these seized items. The 5 accused were duly arrested vide Arrested Memo (Exhibits P-6 and P-7). Statements under Section 161 of the CrPC of injured Sandeep Janghel were recorded and witnesses Chatur Mograj, Papu Sahu, and Mohd. Mumshad Raza. A Patwari Map of the crime scene (Ex. P-21) was obtained. The clothes worn by the injured person at the time of the incident were seized (Ex. P-1). A medical opinion regarding the seized properties was obtained (Ex. P-14). The seized properties were sent to the State Judicial Science Laboratory, Raipur, through memorandums (Exs. P-24 and P-25), and the FSL report (Ex. P-26) was received. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 452, 294, 506, 307, and 34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act on May 4, 2021, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. The case was subsequently transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur through an order dated July 26, 2021, under Section 209 of the CrPC. Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 452/34, 307/34, 294, 506 (Part-II) of the IPC and Sections 25(1)(a)(b) and 27(2) of the Arms Act. 5. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 10 witnesses and 26 exhibits and in his defence, they have also examined three witnesses DW-1, 2 and 3. Statements of accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all incriminating evidence available against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide impugned judgment dated 30.09.2022 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the instant appeals under Section 374(2) of CrPC have been filed by the appellants. 7. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that they are not pressing these appeals as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and are confining their argument to the quantum of sentence only. They would further submit that incident had taken place on 03.02.2021, there was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, it was first offence of appellants and thereafter they had not indulged themselves in any other criminal activity. They would also submit that the learned trial Court has sentenced the appellants for seven years rigorous imprisonment and as the appellants are in jail since 04.02.2021 they have already suffered jail sentence of 3 years 10 months (applicant – Akash Janghel @ Babu) and 2 years 6 months (applicant – Yogesh Rao @ Chirag Rao) and have already deposited the fine amount imposed upon them by the trial Court, therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may suffice to meet the ends of justice. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of 7 learned counsel for appellants and submits that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the applicants, in which no interference is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 10. Though learned counsel for appellants have not challenged conviction of appellants and confined their prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the trial Court. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 11. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in arriving at a conclusion that it is the appellants who have caused injuries to the complainant. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of IPC is also upheld. 12. So far as the sentence imposed upon the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of IPC is concerned, considering the fact that at present, appellants are aged about 23 years and incident took place in a heat of passion and on sudden 8 provocation without any predetermination, nature of injuries and further considering the fact that the counsel for the appellants has confined his agrument in these appeals in relation to the sentence awarded by the trial Court only, as such, looking to the period of detention of the appellants in jail i.e. 3 years 10 months (applicant – Akash Janghel @ Babu) and 2 years 6 months (applicant – Yogesh Rao @ Chirag Rao), this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 7 years to RI for 5 years under Section 307 of the IPC, as the appellants have already suffered the agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. 13. Consequently, the criminal appel is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants under Section 307 of the IPC is hereby maintained, however, their sentence is reduced from RI for 7 years to RI for 5 years. The fine amount shall remain intact. 14. It is stated at the Bar that the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged. They are directed to surrender before the trial Court forthwith for serving remaining part of their sentence as modified by this Court, failing which, they shall be taken into custody to serve out their sentence as modified by this Court. 15. The Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. 16. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the 9 concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail term, to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil