1 2025:CGHC:12704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 494 of 2007 1. Dhan Sai S/o Fadalram Kenwat, Aged about 35 years, R/o Village: Devarghata, P.S. Sheorinarayan, District: Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 2. Rajaram S/o Fadalram Kenwat, Aged about 48 years, R/o Village: Devarghata, P.S. Sheorinarayan, District: Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 3. Ahswani S/o Dhanau Yadav, Aged about 19 years, R/o Village: Devarghata, P.S. Sheorinarayan, District: Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 4. Chamru S/o Dhanau Yadav, Aged about 25 years, R/o Village: Devarghata, P.S. Sheorinarayan, District: Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 5. Dara Singh S/o Bhagwani Kanwar, Aged about 19 years, R/o Village: Devarghata, P.S. Sheorinarayan, District: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ... Appellants versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station: Sheorinarayan, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan and Mr. Rakesh Manikpuri, Advocates. For State/Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.03.22 10:32:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 17/03/2025 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in S.T. No. 88/2006 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence (To each of the Appellants) U/s 323/149 of IPC R.I. for 03 months. (Appellants No. 3, 4 and 5) U/s 452 of IPC R.I. for 01 years. (Appellants No. 3, 4 and 5) U/s 427 of IPC Fine in sum of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 03 months. (All the sentences were directed to run concurrently) 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.07.2006 at about 6:00 Pm, Chaitram was sitting near peepal chaura, close to his house. When he heard abusive language, he went home and saw Chamru (A-4) and Dara Singh (A-5) under drunken condition abusing one Anushiya Bai and when Anushuiya Bai asked them to stop abusing, they became even more aggressive, started quarreling on which when Dilip (nephew of Chaitram) came out from inside, they started assaulting him and also entered the house, damaged kitchen utensils and threatened to kill Chaitram. Later, when Dilip went to a paan shop, Ahswani (A-3) stopped him and assaulted him. Thereafter Dilip returned home and narrated the incident to Chaitram on 3 which Chaitram went to enquire about the incident where appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 abused and assaulted him and when Dilip, Itwara Bai and Dukalu tried to intervene, they were also assaulted by the appellants. Thereafter, a report was filed against the said appellants and after completing the investigation, an offence was registered under Sections 294, 427/149, 323/149, 452 and 506 Part-II of IPC and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Appellants. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the victim has examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. The statement 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. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.2007, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellants No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 294, 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC and ST Act and learned trial Court has also acquitted the Appellants No. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/s 452 and 427. However, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the 4 appellants No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are presently aged about more than 53, 66, 37, 43 and 37 years respectively and they have their family responsibilities and the appellants except appellant No. 5-Dara Singh have already remained in jail for about 10 days. The incident took place in the year 2006 and since then the appellants are facing the lis. This appeal is pending since 2007. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Chaitram (PW-1), Dilip (PW-2), Itwara Bai (Pw- 3), Dukalu (PW-4), Dr. Narayan Prasad (PW-8), establishes the involvement of the Appellants in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of all the appellants for offence punishable under Section 323/149 and Appellants No. 3, 4 and 5 for offence punishable under Sections 452 and 427 of IPC which is based on material available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in the year 2006 i.e. about 18 years ago and now the appellants No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 must be aged about 53, 66, 37, 43 and 37 years respectively, they have their family responsibilities. The appellants have been facing the lis since 5 2007, and the appellants except appellant No.5-Dara Singh have already served a jail sentence of about 10 days. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellants to jail, the ends of justice would serve if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 10. Accordingly, the sentence of R.I. for 03 months for the offence punishable under Section 323/149 of IPC and 01 year for the offence punishable under Section 452 is reduced to the period already undergone by appellants No. 1 to 4 i.e., 10 days and the jail sentence of Appellant No. 5 namely Dara Singh is set aside for the offence under Sections 452 and 323/149. However, a fine of Rs.1000/- is imposed upon each of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 323/149 of IPC and a fine of Rs.1000/- is also imposed upon the appellants No. 3, 4 and 5 namely Ashwani, Chamru and Dara Singh respectively for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC. Further, the fine amount of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 427 of IPC imposed upon the Appellants No. 3, 4 and 5 by the trial Court shall remain intact. The fine amount imposed upon each of the appellants by this Court today shall be payable by the respective appellants, failing which, the appellants shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 02-02 months. Fine, if any, deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted in the fine imposed by this Court today. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender in this case. However, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in 6 Section 437-A of the CrPC. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.