1 2025:CGHC:12934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 865 of 2008 1 - Teman Lal, son of Hemlal Sahu, aged about 24 years, resident of Sohtara, P.S. Balod, District Durg (C.G). ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Balod, District Durg (C.G) ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 18/03/2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2008 passed in S.T.No. 15/2008 by the A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Durg whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : U/S 323 of IPC : R.I., for one year and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months By impugned judgment, learned trial Court acquitted the appellant u/s 307 IPC as the offence is not established against him beyond doubt, but convicted him under Section 323 IPC. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Latkhor Ram Sahu is uncle of appellant. There was a land dispute between them, therefore, accused Temanlal was residing separately in the same village Sonhatara. On 01.04.2008 Latkhor Ram lodged a report to the Police Station Balod that when he was working in his field, accused Teman Lal came there and assaulted him with lathi thereby he sustained injuries and at that time, the labourers who were working at a brick-kiln have come to his rescue. The report having been lodged, FIR was registered. During investigation, complainant was medically examined and spot map was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded and necessary seizures were effected. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as 3 mentioned above. 4. At this stage, 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 also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 1 year awarded to him u/s 323 of IPC, he had already remained in jail for about 31 days. He submits that the incident took place in 2008 since then the appellant is facing the lis and this appeal is pending since 2008 and now he is aged about more than 38 years. He further submits that the appellant and complainant are close relatives and there was a land dispute between the parties. He also submits that there are no criminal antecedents reported against him and looking to the nature of injuries stated by Dr.Shashi Clydes (P.W.4), the sentence of the appellant under section 323 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by her in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of Yuvraj (P.W.1) who is son of complainant and Latkhor, the complainant (P.W.10) which stood firm by the medical evidence of Dr.Shahi Clydes (P.W.4) and other independent witnesses namely Mohanlal Sinha (P.W.3), Nirbhay Sahu (P.W.6), Firturam (P.W.7) & 4 Meghu (P.W.8) who were working as labourers in the nearby brick-kiln of accused and further considering the other attending circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 323 IPC and it is hereby affirmed. 8. As regards the sentence of Appellant, considering the facts that the incident had taken place in 2008 about 17 years ago and the maximum jail sentence awarded to him is RI for 1 year u/s 323 IPC, out of which, as stated by learned counsel she had already remained in jail for about 31 days and is facing the lis since 2008 and further looking to his present age as also considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against her and looking to the interse relations of parties and as there exists a land dispute between them which led to the incident, in the interest of justice and in the considered opinion of this Court, instead of again sending him to jail, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant from 1 year R.I. to the period already undergone by him i.e. 31 days for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. It is made clear that the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 5 10. Appellant is on bail. He need not again 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. 11. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao