1 2025:CGHC:8721 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 261 of 2009 1 - Mohd. Ishhaque S/o Sheikh Gyasuddin Musalman, aged about 61 years, resident of village Tatiaathar, P.S. Sanawal, Distt. Surguja (C.G). 2. Hasina W/o Mohd. Ishhaque, Aged about 59 years, resident of village Tatiaathar, P.S. Sanawal, Distt. Surguja (C.G). 3. Mohd. Ashimuddin, Son of Mohd. Ishhaque, aged about 33 years, resident of village Tatiaathar, P.S. Sanawal, Distt. Surguja (C.G). 4. Mohd. Ainule, S/o Mohd. Gulam Rasool, aged about 28 years, resident of village Tatiaathar, P.S. Sanawal, Distt. Surguja (C.G). ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Incharge of P.S. Sanawal, Distt.- Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the appellants : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 19/02/2025 2 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 22.01.2009 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.65/2008 whereby the learned Special Judge, Ambikapur convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : U/S 325 read with section 34 of IPC : Punishment till rising of the court and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, RI for 1 month. However, by the said impugned judgment the learned trial Court acquitted the appellants u/ss 294, 506 (Part-II) & 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 while convicting them as stated above. 2. The case of prosecution is that there was a land dispute between the accused party and complainant Ramvriksh and the case was pending before the Revenue Court. In this back ground, on 22.11.2007 at 1.30 p.m., the accused persons entered into the house of complainant Ram Vriksh and aggressively asked his daughter where is her father and hurled abuses against her father and further gave a slap to his daughter. Thereafter, at 4.00 p.m., when complainant Ramvriksh came back to the house after grazing cattle, his daughter narrated the incident to him. Then the complainant asked the accused Asimuddin why he assaulted his daughter, on which, all the accused came to the complainant’s house with sticks and started hitting complainant, with 3 sticks by hurling abuses in the name of his caste. On the same date, complainant lodged the FIR against the accused persons before police station Sanawa. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The case was committed to the learned Special Sessions Judge (Atrocities) Ambikapur. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined in all 8 witnesses case and exhibited 12 documents. Thereafter the accused were examined u/s 313 CrPC wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, the accused has also examined 1 witness and exhibited 3 documents. After evaluating the evidence and facts on record, the learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence, as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the conviction placed by the trial Court and the fine imposed u/s 325 read with section 34 IPC are not justified which needs interference by this Court and prays that the appellants be acquitted of the offence. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that after considering the facts and evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and the imprisonment till rising of the Court is recognized as a valid form of punishment. Hence the conviction and sentence does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records. 4 7. Complainant Ramvriksha (P.W.1) at para 2 of his statement has deposed that accused Asimuddin, Ishaq, Ainul and Hasina had hurled abuses and hit him with sticks on his body. His statement further stood firm by the statements of other independent witnesses Parmila (P.W.2), Ramkhilawan (P.W.3) and Keshav Sharan (P.W.6). 8. Dr. Ajay Kumar Tirkey (P.,W.7) has stated that on 28.11.2007 he had examined both the injured Ramvriksh and his wife and on examination, injured Ramvriksh was found to have deformity and pain in the little fingers of his left hand and further he was found to be having pain on his buttocks. According to the Doctor, the said injuries might have been caused by hard and sharp weapon. On examination of X- Ray plate of injured Ramvriksh, the doctor found the fracture on middle phalanges. Therefore, he opined that injury no.1 is grievous in nature. P.W. 7 has further stated that on the same date he also examined another injured Manmati, wife of Ramvriksh and found the following injuries on her : (i) a linear injury admeasuring 6 x 2 cm on the back side of her right arm which was bluish-black in colour and (ii) she was found to have pain in over her right scapular region. A perusal of evidence of doctor clearly goes to show that the statements of complainant Ramvriksha (P.W.1) and other independent witnesses Parmila (P.W.2), Ramkhilawan (P.W.3) and Keshav Sharan (P.W.6) are supported by the medical evidence which remains unrebutted by the accused in their defence. 5 9. In view of the above discussion of facts and evidence, I am of the considered view that the conviction of the appellants u/s 325 IPC cannot be said to be unsustained and is hereby upheld. 10. Now coming to the sentence part, the appellants have been directed to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and further to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, they have been directed to undergo additional RI for one month. However, looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant and his wife, the punishment till rising of the Court along with fine imposed on the appellants cannot be said to be on higher side. Imprisonment till rising of the Court is recognized as a valid form of punishment under the IPC and CrPC. Thus the sentence part also needs no interference by this Court. 11. In the result, he appeal is dismissed. 12. 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, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge R a o 6