1 2025:CGHC:12933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 434 of 2008 Ramji Yadav, S/o Mahadev Yadav, aged about 21 years, R/o E.W.S., Nehru Nagar, East, Near Choubey Flour Mill, Supela, District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Bhilai Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Naveen Shukla, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 18.03.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.04.2008 passed by learned 12th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 157/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 332 & 447 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and rigorous imprisonment for 1 month respectively. Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.20 11:42:11 +0530 2 2. The case of prosecution is that, the complainant, Hariprasad, is posted as a Home Guard at Bhilai Nagar Police Station. On 27-10-2006, while patrolling near the post office premises, at approximately 1:30 AM, Hariprasad noticed a person sneaking into the post office by scaling the wall. When he approached the person, the intruder pulled out a knife and attacked Hariprasad with the intent to kill. Hariprasad grabbed the knife with his hands, sustaining injuries to his fingers. Immediately, Hariprasad and his colleague Narsingh overpowered the appellant. Hearing the commotion, post office guard Salik Das, assistant postmaster Vimal Kumar, and some local people rushed to the scene. Upon receiving information, a police team arrived at the scene. The appellant was apprehended, and the knife and other tools were seized. Thereafter, FIR was registered based on Hariprasad's complaint. The statements of witnesses were recorded. Upon completion of the necessary investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the appellant is now aged about 40 years and has family responsibilities and he has already remained in jail for about 50 days. The incident took place in the year 2006 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. This appeal is also pending since 2008. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him 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 statement of complainant Hariprasad (PW-1) and witnesses Narsingh (PW-3), Salikdas Manikpuri (PW-2) and Vimal Kumar Tripathi (PW-4), establish the involvement of the appellant 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 the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 332 & 447 of IPC which is based on evidence 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 19 years ago. At that time, the appellant was aged about 21 years and now he must be aged about 40 years having family responsibility. The appellant is facing the lis since 2006 and he has already remained in jail for about 50 days. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellant to jail 4 and the ends of justice would serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Sections 332 & 447 of IPC is maintained and the sentence of RI for 2 year for offence under Section 332 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 50 days. However, the appellant is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the above offence and in default thereof, he shall liable to undergo RI for 4 months. The sentence for offence under Section 447 of IPC is hereby affirmed. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in 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 Shubham