1 2025:CGHC:14141 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 664 of 20 08 1. Maniram S/o Shri Daduram Kewat aged about 50 years 2. Died (Banmali S/o Maniram Kewat) (appeal against him has already been abated vide order of this Court dated 27.02.2025.) 3. Baba @ Dev Kumar S/o Maniram Kewat aged about 20 years 4. Bodu @ Bodhram S/o Maniram Kewat aged about 19 years All are R/o Sonarin Ghat P.S. Champa, District – Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: District Magistrate Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 24 / 03 /202 5 1 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.02.2025, appellants No. 1, 3 and 4 are present in person before this Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.25 17:54:09 +0530 2 Court. Their presence be marked. 2 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.07.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Jude, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 21/2008 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced appellants No. 1, 3 and 4 as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 331 r/w Section 34 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, each in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 3 months. 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.10.2007 Laxmi Prasad was sitting outside his house, at that time Maniram charged him that he has committed a theft of Rs. 2000/- and while having denied Maniram, Banvali, Baba, Bodhram and others started to abuse him and started to threaten him. Further, it is alleged that Baba assaulted him with a belt and Maniram, Bodhram Banmali also assaulted him with hands and fists, due to which the teeth of Laxmi Prasad were broken and his face was swelling. The matter was reported to the police. On the complaint FIR was lodged and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. 4 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. The statements of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 5 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of 3 conviction and order of sentence dated 07.07.2008, learned Judge has acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 294 and 506(2) of IPC. However, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned in para-2 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2007, and thereby more than 17 years have rolled by since then. At present, appellant No.1 Maniram is aged about 67 years, appellant No.3 Baba @ Dev Kumar is aged about 37 years, appellant No.4Bodu @ Bodhram is aged about 36 years and appellants No. 1 & 4 have already remained in jail for about 4 days; appellant No.3 has already remained in jail for about 22 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellants. 8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Laxmi Prasad (PW-1), Lacchi Ram (PW-6), S.L. Anant (PW-7), Dr. Lata Keskar (PW-8) and 4 Sushma Mahajan (PW-9), establishes the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 331 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 10 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2007 about 17 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that appellants No. 1, 3 and 4 has no criminal antecedent and appellants No. 1 & 4 have already remained in jail for about 4 days and appellant No.3 has already remained in jail for about 22 days, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 11 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back appellants No. 1, 3 and 4 to jail. Hence, appellants No. 1, 3 and 4 are sentenced to the period already undergone by them instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 331 r/w Section 34 of IPC. However, the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed upon each of the appellants by the Trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- each. The imposed/enhanced fine amount by this Court today shall be payable by appellants No. 1, 3 and 4, failing which the appellants shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 2 months. Fine, if any, deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted to the fine imposed/enhanced by this Court today. 12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13 Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a 5 further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 14 Record of the trial Court be sent along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu