1 2025:CGHC:22721 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 585 of 2008 1. Arjun, S/o Ramsata Patle, Aged about 28 years, 2. Gudda, S/o Ramsata Patle, Aged about 23 years, 3. Kariya @ Gangaram, S/o Ramsata Patle, Aged about 20 years, Occupation- Labourer, all are R/o Village- Kewtara, P.S.- Masturi District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ...Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Masturi District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 09.06.2025 1. The appellants in this appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC have challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of 2 conviction and order of sentence dated 13.06.2008 passed by learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 159/2007 whereby the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence (On account of causing hurt to Beersay) Appellants No. 1, 2 & 3 under Section 323 of the IPC R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine amount, additional S.I. for 1 month (On account of causing hurt to Balbhadra) Appellants No. 2 & 3 under Section 323 of the IPC R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine amount, additional S.I. for 1 month (On account of causing hurt to Balbhadra) Appellant No. 1 under Section 323/34 of the IPC R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine amount, additional S.I. for 1 month (All the sentences to be run concurrently) 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.03.2007, the appellants along with other co-accused persons had a quarrel with Balbhadra and Beersay and they also extended threat to the deceased Ramji Patle about killing his son Sarwan. In the intervening night of 04.03.2007 and 05.03.2007, being threatened by the accused/appellants, Ramji Patle committed suicide by hanging himself. The postmortem of the body was conducted. The postmortem report also shows that the cause of death is due to hanging. Thereafter, the FIR was registered against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC. On the basis of morgue intimation, after postmortem of the deceased, 3 seizures were made as per seizure memo. Spot map was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants under Sections 306/34 of IPC before the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 306/149 of IPC and 323/149 of IPC, to which appellants abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence, the accused/appellants did not adduce any evidence. 4. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 306/149 of IPC & convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The prosecution had filed challan under Section 306/149 of IPC against the appellants and other co-accused alleging that Ramji patle committed suicide being threatened by the accused and during the trial, the learned trial Court framed charges U/S 306/149 of IPC and 323/149 of the IPC, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the incident of assault was of totally different timing and it constituted a different act and a different offence, for which charges 4 could not be framed in the present trial and the offence punishable U/S 323/149 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Magistrate, therefore, the judgment and conviction of the trial Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly. 6. He further submits that the learned trial Court has acquitted the similarly situated co-accused persons namely Ramsata, Rajaram, Lachchiram and Goverdhan of the charges U/S 306, 323/149 of the IPC and convicted the appellants U/S 323, 323/34 of IPC which is not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellants considering the prosecution evidence properly. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and gave wrong finding. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, he submits that if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellants under the aforesaid section as imposed by the trial Court is just and proper, considering the fact that the appellants have remained in jail for more than 1 month; this appeal is pending since 2008 and as of now the appellants No.1,2 and 3 are aged about 45, 40 and 37 years respectively, they have no criminal antecedents. Therefore , the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court having appreciated the overall oral and documentary evidence, has rightly recorded a finding of guilt against the appellants which needs no 5 interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being sans merits is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 9. It is clear from the record of the trial Court that the learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 306/149 of IPC and 323/149 of IPC against the appellants. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 306/149 of IPC and convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of IPC. 10. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the statements of prosecution witnesses namely Janakram Patre (P.W.-1), Teejbai (P.W.- 2), Dr. J.P. Arya (P.W.-3), Balbhadra (P.W.-4), Beersay Patle (P.W.-5), Lala Patle (P.W.-6), Shrawan Kumar (P.W.-7), Beetan Bai (P.W.-8), Rajkumar Gandharv (P.W.-9), Ramkumar (P.W.-10), Shatrughan (P.W.- 11), Bharat (P.W.-12), K.R. Karsal (P.W.-13) & Shankardas Mahant (P.W.-14) and acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 306/149 of IPC and convicted them under Section 323/34 of IPC. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence of witnesses as well as medical evidence. Hence, the conviction of the appellants under Section 323/34 of IPC is affirmed. 11. As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident took place in the year 2007 and nearly 18 years have rolled by since then; appellants are middle aged persons; they remained in jail for more than 1 month, the appellants are on bail since long and did not misuse the liberty so granted, hence taking into consideration the facts and 6 circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded under Section 323/34 of IPC to the appellants by the trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellants under Section 323/34 of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. 13. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 14. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV