1 2025:CGHC:4693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.849 of 2005 1 - Mahendra Nirmalkar, S/o Benuram, aged about 28-29 years, Occupation Auto Mechanic, Village Jepra, Police Station Charama, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Charama, District Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 27/01/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.11.2005 passed by the learned Special Court (SC/ST Act), Bastar, Jagdalpur in Session Trial No.44/2005, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 353 & 294 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and 3 months, respectively, with default stipulations. Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.09.2004, the complainant/Station House Officer D. R. Dhruw, Police Station Charama got information against the appellant that he was involved in "Satta-Patti" and after getting information he went to raid the shop with police party to seize "Satta-Patti", but the appellant abused him in filthy languages and used criminal force against him, thereafter a case was registered against the appellant. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. There is also a delay in lodging the FIR and the prosecution has not offered any explanation in this regard. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has ignored the evidence of independent witnesses Dilip Kumar and Ranjan Sinha, who have been declared hostile, as such the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable and the appellant deserves to be acquitted. Alternatively, he submits that the incident took place in the year 2004 and at that time, the appellant was aged about 28 years and this appeal is pending since 2005 and now the appellant is a middle aged person and he has remained in jail for more than 10 days and has not 3 misused the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 353, 294 & 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellant from the offence under Section 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST Act and convicted the appellant under Sections 353 & 294 of IPC, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. The complainant D. R. Dhruw (PW-6) stated that he belongs to the Tribal Community and he was posted as Station House Officer at Police Station Charama during the period 09.07.2004 to May, 2005 and on 13.09.2004, he was going to Village Kurubhat with his police party and as per information of 4 informant, they reached Village Jepra in the shop of the appellant and seized satta patti and cash. At the time of seizure and other proceedings, the accused threatened and abused him and also manhandled him, then he lodged FIR (Ex-P/4). In the cross- examination, he remained firm. Constable Mangal Singh Jurry (PW-2) and Constable Ramkumar Jain (PW-7) supported the statement of the complainant. 8. The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and rightly found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant for the offence under Section 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST Act, but the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant under Sections 353 & 294 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on the proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. As regards sentence, it is clear that incident took place in the year 2005 and at that time, the appellant was aged about 30 years and presently he is aged about 50 years and this appeal is pending since 2005 and the appellant has remained in jail for more than 10 days and he has not misused the liberty granted by this Court, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the 5 appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. 11. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 12. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala