1 2025:CGHC:14630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 897 of 2008 1 - Lala Yadav @ Manoj Kumar S/o Dwas Ram Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Purani Basti Bongapal P.S. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) 2 - Vijay Kumar (died and abated as per Honble Court Order dated 21-02-2025) 3 - Mahesh Kumar S/o Ramsai Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Purani Basti Bongapal P.S. Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Janjgir District- Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For the appellants : Mr. Kalyan Kalamkar, Advocate For the State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 26/03/2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.10.2008 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 72/2008 by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced her as under: Conviction of appellant no.1 Lala @ Manoj Kumar U/s 324 of IPC : RI for six months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, one month additional SI Conviction of appellants 2 & 3 Vijay Kumar & Mahesh Kumar U/s 323 read with section 34 of IPC. : RI for three months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, one month additional SI By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellants under Sections 294, 506(B) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 holding that no such offences are proved against them. Appellant No.1 Lala Yadav @ Manoj was also acquitted of the offence u/s 25(1) (1-B) and Section 27(2) of the Arms Act. 2. During the pendency of appeal, Appellant no.2 Vijay Kumar has died, therefore his appeal stands dismissed as abated by order dated 3 21.02.2025. Now the appeal of appellants 1 & 3 remains for adjudication and is hereby decided. 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Itwarabai Suryavanshi and her son namely Manharan Suryavanshi who belonged to Scheduled Caste lodged a report in Police Station Janjgir to the effect that on 08.03.2008 in the night accused Lala Yadav was hurling abuses near the house of complainant and when Manharan stopped Lala Yadav from abusing, he abused Manharan in the name of his caste. Then Lala Yadav went back to his house and brought two other accused Vijay Yadav and Mahesh Yadav with him. They all came in front of the house of complainant Itwara Bai and abused her in filthy language in the name of caste and threatened to kill her. At that time, when accused Lala Yadav tried to assault Manharan with a pointed weapon , complainant Itwara Bai caught hold of the knife and in that process her left hand finger got cut. Other accused also hit Manharan with hands and fists. The complainant was sent for treatment and medical report was obtained. During investigation, seizures were effected, incident spot map was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded and the accused were arrested. After completing the investigation and on complying with other procedural requirements, the charge sheet was filed. 4. The prosecution has in all examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 14 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 4 prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para-1. 5. 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 6 months and 3 months, the appellants have remained in jail for about 3 days. He submits that the incident took place in the year 2008, since then the appellants are facing the lis and this appeal is pending since 2008 and now they are aged about more than 40 years. He further submits that the appellants are poor labourers and there are no criminal antecedents reported against them. He prays that at this stage the sentence of the appellants under sections 324 & 323/34 of IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the statements of complainant Itwara Bai (P.W.1) and her son Manharan (P.W.6), eye witness Rajesh (P.W.7) which stood firm by the statement of Dr. Arvind Dwiwedi (P.W.11) which establish the involvement of 5 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 Lala Yadav for the offence punishable u/s 324 IPC and appellant Mahesh for the offence punishable u/s 323/34 of IPC and it is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the sentence of Appellants Lala Yadav and Mahesh Kumar, considering the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2008 about 16 years ago and the short-term sentences awarded to Appellants Lala Yadav and Mahesh Kumar is RI for six months u/s 324 IPC and R.I., for 3 months u/s 323/34 of IPC respectively, out of which, as stated by learned counsel they had already remained in jail for about 3 and are facing the lis since 2008 and further looking to their present age as also considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against them, in the interest of justice, instead of again sending them to jail, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellants Lala Yadav and Mahesh Kumar from R.I. for six months u/s 324 of IPC and R.I., for 3 months u/s 323/34 IPC respectively to the period already undergone by them. As regards appellant Lala Yadav @ Manoj Kumar, this Court also feels appropriate to enhance the fine of Rs.500/- as imposed by the trial Court to Rs.5000/- and the fine imposed against appellant Mahesh Kumar shall remain intact If any fine amount deposited before the trial Court shall be adjusted in the enhanced amount which is hereby imposed by this Court. It is ordered accordingly. 6 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 11. 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. 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. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao 7