1 2025:CGHC:11397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 874 of 2005 1 - Vishram Sinha S/o Sita Ram Sinha Aged about 45 years, Occupation- Thelapuller. 2 - Suresh Kumar Sinha S/o Vishram Sinha, Aged about 21 years Occupation- Driver Both R/o- Krishana Kirana Stors, Ram Nagar, Azad Chouk P.S. Supela District- Durg (C.G.). ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh through its Police Station – Supela (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on board 07/03/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.11.2005, passed in Criminal Case No.56/2004 by which the Additional Sessions Judge, District - Durg (C.G.) (for short trial Court) by the learned trial Court held the appellants guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below - Conviction U/s 323 of Indian Penal Code. Sentence Awarded 6 months R.I. and Fine of Rs. 500/- to the appellant No.2 Suresh Kumar Sinha, in default of payment of fine 3 months R.I. 2 U/s 323/34 of Indian Penal Code. Fine of Rs. 1000/- to Appellant No.1/Vishram Sinha, in default of payment of fine six months R.I. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on the date of incident dated 09.02.2004 at about 4.00 P.M. near Krishna General Store Shop, Ram Nagar Supela, the appellants assaulted the complainant Itwari Tandan with Lathi and caused injury to him. Matter was reported by the complainant on 12.08.2004. 3. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against appellants before the Court below concerned. Charges were framed against accused persons for the offence referred to above and they denied the charges levelled against them and sought trial. 4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 12 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents. 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. After completion of trial, the trial Court disbelieved the statement of the witnesses with regard to the conviction of the appellants vide impugned judgment acquitted the appellants under Sections 294, 506(b) and 3(10) of SC & ST Act, 1989. However, from the statement of the witnesses particularly Itwari Lal, Laxmi Narayan and Santarabai, the case against the appellants has been found to be proved under sections 323 and 323/34. 5. Learned counsel for appellants argued that the prosecution was unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Initially, the injuries was said to be grievous but head injury could also occur due to a fall. He submits that the statement of witnesses is not credible. He further submits that the appellants faced trial since 2004 and they were on bail during the trial and their sentences 3 were also suspended by the Trial Court and they never misused the liberty. They remained in jail about 6 days and fine amount has already been deposited. Therefore, he prays that the sentence awarded to the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that looking to the injury suffered by victim/complainant, leniency should not be shown to appellants herein. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 8. Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly the statement of Laxminarayan (Pw-1), Dr. Avinash Asthana (Pw-3) and Itwari Lal (Pw-4), in my considered view, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the trial Court. Thus, conviction of appellants are hereby affirmed. 9. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the fact that incident took place in the year 2004 i.e. 21 years have elapsed, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending appellant No.2 Suresh Kumar Sinha to jail at this point of time for undergoing remaining period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellant No.2 Suresh Kumar Sinha is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. As a consequence, the appeal of appellant No.1 Vishram Sinha is dismissed and appeal of appellant No.2 Suresh Kumar Sinha is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant No.2 Suresh Kumar Sinha under Section 323 of IPC is hereby affirmed. Sentence imposed upon appellant No.2 Suresh Sinha under aforementioned Section is hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by appellant No.2 Suresh Kumar Sinha. Fine amount of Rs. 5,00/- 4 imposed upon appellant No.2 Suresh Kumar Sinha and Rs.1,000/- imposed upon appellant No.1 Vishram Sinha paid by the appellants shall remain as it is. The appellant No.2 Suresh Sinha is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds will remain in force for 6 months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023. The record be sent back with copy of this Judgment forthwith for necessary action and compliance. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE H.Ansari HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.03.25 10:34:22 +0530