1 2025:CGHC:14143 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 737 of 2008 1 – Sitaram, S/o Uderam Verma, aged about 58 years, resident of village Deurgaon, P.S. Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Tamraj Verma, Son of Sitaram Verma, aged about 32 years, resident of village Deurgaon, P.S. Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3. Kileshwar Verma, son of Sitaram Verma, aged about 28 years, resident of village Deurgaon, P.S. Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Chain Kumar, son of Manaram Verma, aged about 30 years, resident of village Deurgaon, P.S. Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, P.S. Saja, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent For the appellants : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hrishabh Deo, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 24/03/2025 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 01. Cr.A.No.737 of 2008 under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2008 passed in S.T.No. 85 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg Chhattisgarh whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under : U/s 324/34 of IPC : RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine, additional Simple Imprisonment for 3 months each. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has acquitted the appellants for the offence under section 307/34 IPC holding that the offence u/s 307/34 IPC has not been proved beyond doubt. 02. Criminal Revision bearing Cr.R.No.572 of 2008 filed by the complainant Shiv Prasad seeking enhancement of sentence of the appellants stood dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 02.05.2019. Therefore, Criminal Appeal remained for adjudication and is hereby decided by this judgment. 03. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.01.2005, one Khedia Bai won the election for the post of Sarpanch of the village and wife of former Sarpanch, accused Sitaram lost the election. The complainant Shivprasad Patel had supported Khediyabai in the election, due to which the accused Sitaram and his family members had developed grudge against complainant and his family members. On 16.01.2005, Khedia Bai along with her husband went from door to door in the village to convey their gratitude to the villagers for making her win the election. The complainant Shivprasad Patel and other villagers had also accompanied them. When they came near one Rajendra’s house, all the accused persons caught him and said to kill him as he has opposed them a lot in the election due to which they lost 3 election. It is alleged that accused Kileshwar hit Shivprasad Patel with Tangia, due to which, he sustained head injury whereas other Accused Tamradhwaj hit him with lathi on the nose due to which complainant fell down. At that time, Chandu Markam, Laldhar Vaishnav and other villagers came to his rescue. On report being made by complainant, crime was registered u/s 324/34 of IPC in P.S. Saja. During investigation, seizures were affected and the statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation and on complying with procedural requirements, the charge sheet was filed. 04. The prosecution has in all examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein they 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 appellants as mentioned above. 05. At this stage, 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 also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of RI for 2 years awarded to her u/s 324/34 IPC, they had already remained in jail for two days. He submits that the incident took place in the year 2005 since then the appellants are facing the lis and this appeal is pending since 2008. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents reported against the appellants and prays that the sentence of the appellant under section 324/34 of IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice. 4 06. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants. 07. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 08. So far as conviction of the appellants are concerned, having gone through the material available on record and the court statement of complainant Shiv Prasad (P.W.1) which stood firm by the statement of Dr. Sunil Singh (P.W.7) and further considering the statements of other witnesses Chandu Markam (P.W.2), Bharatlal (P.W.4) and Sachin Choubey (P.W.5) who establish the involvement of the accused, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 324/34 of IPC and it is hereby affirmed. 09. As regards the sentence of Appellants considering the facts that the incident had taken place in 16.01.2005 about 19 years ago and the maximum jail sentence awarded to them is RI for two year u/s 324/34 IPC, out of which, as stated by learned counsel they had already remained in jail for about 2 days and are facing the lis since 2005 and looking to the present age of the appellants as also considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against them, in the interest of justice and in the considered opinion of this Court, instead of again sending them to jail, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellants from 2 years R.I. to the period already undergone by them for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC and enhance the fine of Rs.2000/- as imposed by the trial Court to Rs.4000/-. If any fine amount already deposited before the 5 trial Court shall be adjusted in the enhanced fine which is hereby imposed by this Court. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated here- in-above. 11. It is stated that Appellant No3. Khileshwar is a government servant. His job and service career shall not be affected in any manner by virtue of this judgment. 12. Appellants are on bail. They need not again 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 Section 437-A of the CrPC. 13. 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