1 - Shri Pawan Beldar S/o Late Shri Pratap Beldar Aged About 20 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Kumhari District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:26784 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2 of 2025 1 - Shri Pawan Beldar S/o Late Shri Pratap Beldar Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Ramnagar Kumhari P.S. Kumhari District - Durg (C.G.). --- Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Kumhari District - Durg (C.G.). --- Respondent CRA No. 2233 of 2024 1 - Shri Aman Beldar S/o Late Shri Munna Beldar Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Ramnagar, Kumhari, Police Station Kumhari, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kumhari, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent CRA No. 2268 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
1 - Shri Bittu Beldar S/o Shri Pratap Beldar Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No.7, Ramnagar, Kumhari, P.S. Kumhari, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.06.24 13:50:55 +0530 Versus 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kumhari, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent CRA No. 2238 of 2024 1 - Shri Sameer Beldar S/o Shri Suraj Beldar Aged About 21 Years R/o No. 07, Ramnagar, Kumhari, P.S. Kumhari, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Kumhari, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent CRA No. 2237 of 2024 1 - Shri Raju Beldar S/o Late Shri Dara Beldar Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Ramnagar, Kumhari, P.S. Kumhari, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kumhari, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Vedant Bhelonde, Adv. along with Mr. Swadesh P. Tewari, Adv. in all the appeals. For Respondent-State ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (23.06.2025) 1. Since all the appeals arise out of the same order of conviction and sentence dated 25.10.2024, they are being
Decision
heard and disposed of by this common order. 3 2. These criminal appeals filed by the appellants/accused persons under Section 415(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.10.2024, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.129/2024, whereby the appellants/accused persons have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 307 of IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 3 months. U/s 294 of IPC R.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 20 days. U/s 506 Part-II of R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, IPC in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 3 months. U/s 147 of IPC R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 3 months. (All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.) 3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant, father of the victim (Vicky), lodged a report stating therein that on the date of offence i.e. 23.04.2024 at about 5:00 pm, when he, his son Vicky and his relative Abu Netam went for bathing at Sulabh Shauchalay near Bazaar Chowk, Kumhari Market, at that time the appellants/accused persons namely, Pawan Beldar, Bittu Beldar, Aman Beldar, Samir Beldar and Raju Beldar cause, used foul language against them and intimidated him and his on that they will kill them and thereafter chased them. The accused persons got hold of the complainant’s son (Vicky) behind the road of the Old Govt. Hospital wherein the accused Pawan Beldar 4 assaulted on the neck of the victim with a sharp object, and other accused persons, namely, Bittu, Samir, Aman and Raju, assaulted Vicky by means of iron pipes. Based on this, FIR was lodged, and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents. Statements of the appellants/accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied circumstances appearing against them in prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Hence, these appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only to the sentence part. He further submits that victim Vicky Gond has settled his dispute with the accused persons and entered into compromise with them; for this, I.A. No.02/2025, a joint application under Section 359 read with Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 for compounding of offences has been filed in all the criminal appeals. Furthermore, out of 10 years of jail sentence for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, appellant Pawan Beldar in CRA No. 02/2025 has already undergone about 1 year and 1 day in jail; appellant Aman Beldar in CRA No. 2233/2024 and appellant Sameer Beldar in CRA No. 2238/2024 have already undergone about 11 months and 23 days in jail; appellant Raju Beldar in CRA No. 2237/2024 has already undergone about 11 months 10 days in jail; appellant Bittu Beldar in CRA No. 2268/2024 has already undergone about 11 months and 16 days in 5 jail and they are still serving jail sentence. The incident occurred in the year 2024. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence of the Appellant/accused persons may be reduced to the period already undergone by them, and they may be released from jail. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that the conclusion given by the trial court regarding conviction and sentence of the appellants is based on sufficient and reliable evidence, which does not require any interference. Therefore, the contention made by the counsel for the appellants is not acceptable, hence, the appeal may be dismissed. 8. Victim Vicky Gond is present in person before this Court today and states that he has amicably settled his dispute with the accused persons and he has no objection if the appellants are released. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. On the basis of material evidence available on record and the statements of Aadesh Gond (PW-1), victim, Vicky Gond (PW-2), Dr. Pushpak Nagvanshi (PW-3), Ishlesh Netam (PW- 4), Dr. Varsha Mungutwar (PW-5) and Ajay Singh (PW-6), the conviction of the appellants is found proper. The evidence presented by the prosecution in this case are found to be valid, reliable and clear evidence to establish the above fact. The findings on conviction of the appellants/accused persons recorded by the Trial Court is based upon the proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. I hereby affirm the said findings on conviction of the appellants/accused persons. 11. The victim, Vicky with the accused persons has jointly filed I.A. No.02/2025, application for compounding the offence in all the appeals stating that he has amicably resolved and 6 settled his dispute with the accused persons in this case without any external influence and have agreed that they will maintain cordial relationship with each other in future and live peacefully without any quarrels. Thus, though Section 307 of IPC is non-compoundable and the offences under Sections 294, 147 and 506 Part II of IPC are compoundable the same would not cause any prejudice to society or public at large. 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Baldev Singh and others v. State of Punjab, (2011) 13 SCC 705 in paragraphs 4 & 5 has held as under:- “4. Section 376 is a non-compoundable offence. However, the fact that the incident is an old one, is a circumstance for invoking the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) and awarding a sentence of less than 10 years, which is ordinarily the minimum sentence under that provision, as we think that there are adequate and special reasons for doing so. 5. On the facts of the case, considering that the incident happened in the year 1997 and that the parties have themselves entered into a compromise, we uphold the conviction of the appellant but we reduce the sentence to the period of sentence already undergone by in view of the proviso to Section 376 (2) (g) which for adequate and special reasons permits imposition of a lesser sentence……...” 13. As regards the sentence part of the Appellant/accused persons is concerned, taking into consideration that the Appellants are facing lis since 2024, i.e. about 1 year, the Appellants and the victim entered into a compromise but the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not compoundable and victim of Sections 294 and 506 Part II of IPC is not only Vicky but also his father/complainant who has not compromised with the accused persons, therefore, the 7 application (I.A. No. 02/2025) filed in all the appeals are not allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants/accused persons under Section 294 of the IPC are hereby affirmed. However, in light of Baldev Singh (Supra), the jail sentence awarded to the Appellants/accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 307, 506 Part II and 147 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by them as appellant Pawan Beldar in CRA No. 02/2025 has already undergone about 1 year and 1 day in jail; appellant Aman Beldar in CRA No. 2233/2024 and appellant Sameer Beeldar in CRA No. 2238/2024 have already undergone about 11 months and 23 days in jail; appellant Raju Beldar in CRA No. 2237/2024 has already undergone about 11 months 10 days in jail; appellant Bittu Beldar in CRA No. 2268/2024 has already undergone about 11 months and 16 days in jail and they are still serving jail sentence. However, the fine imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact with default stipulation. 14. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 15. Appellants/accused persons are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 16. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and the copy of this judgment be supplied to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants/accuse persons are lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. H.L. Sahu Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge