1 2025:CGHC:13334 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 908 of 2008 1 – Manharan, S/o Bachcharam Yadav, aged about: 55 years, R/o. Village Putpura, Police Station: Janjgir, District : Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 2. Pradeep Kumar, S/o. Manharan Yadav, aged about: 28 years, R/o. Village Putpura, Police Station: Janjgir, District : Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 3. Rajkumar, S/o. Manharan Yadav, aged about 25 years, R/o. Village Putpura, Police Station: Janjgir, District : Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 4. Ramesh Kumar @ Chuman Yadav, S/o. Manharan Yadav, aged about: 20 years, R/o. Village Putpura, Police Station: Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 5. Sonallu @ Ajay, S/o Manharan Yadav, aged about: 18 years, R/o. Village Putpura, Police Station: Janjgir, District : Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 6. Manoj Kumar, S/o. Manharan Yadav, aged about: 30 years, R/o. Village Putpura, Police Station: Janjgir, District : Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 7. Deo Narayan, S/o. Vijay Ram Yadav, aged about: 18 years, R/o. Village Putpura, Police Station: Janjgir, District : Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). ... Appellants SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.22 17:09:51 +0530 2 versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station : Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 20.03.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Janjgi-Champa (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 56/2008 whereby the appellants has been convicted for offence as under:- Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 148 of IPC RI for 6 months and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, SI for 1 month. U/s 325 R/w Section 149 of IPC RI for 1 year and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, SI for 1 month. U/s 323 R/w Section 149 of IPC RI for 6 months and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, SI for 1 month. 2. The case of prosecution is that, on January 27, 2008, at around 8:30 PM in Village Putpura, the complainant Kholbahara’s grandson, Om Prakash, asked the appellant Manharan’s son, Sonallu, for a cassette for his Walkman. However, Sonallu refused to give him the cassette and 3 abused Om Prakash in offensive term. At that time, Manharan hit Om Prakash with a stick. Om Prakash, crying, went home and informed his family about the incident. Later, at around 6:30 PM, the complainant Kholbahara, along with his son Ganesh and daughter-in-law Bedanbai, went to Manharan to confront him about why he had beaten his grandson. However, Manharan sent Sonallu to call his other sons. As Kholbahara and his family were near their house, the accused blocked their way, abused them and threatened to kill them. The accused Deo Narayan hit Bedanbai on her nose with a stick, when Kholbahara intervened, the accused Pradeep hit him with a rod, injuring his head. The accused Manharan hit Om Prakash on his thigh and left shoulder with a stick. Kholbahara’s wife, Dularbai, was also beaten by accused Pradeep, causing an injury to her right hand. The complainant Kholbahara filed a report at Janjgir Police Station. Thereafter, the victims were sent for medical examination, where injuries were confirmed on Kholbahara, Ganeshram, Bedanbai, Dularabai, and Om Prakash. It was found that Ganeshram had suffered a fracture in 5th metacarpal bone. During the investigation, a site map (Exhibit P-3) was prepared, and witness statements were recorded. The accused were arrested. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the appellants / accused were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the appellants for offence under Sections 341, 294 and 506 Part-2 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. 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 submits that the appellants have family responsibilities, they have no criminal antecedents and appellants Manharan, Pradeep Kumar, Rajkumar, Sonallu, Manoj Kumar and Deo Narayan have already remained in jail for 2 days and appellant Ramesh Kumar has already remained in jail for 32 days. The incident took place in the year 2008 and since then the appellants are facing the lis. This appeal is also pending since 2008. Hence, considering all these facts, the sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment and opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the impugned judgment. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of complainant Kholbahara (PW-1), Ganeshram (PW-2), Omprakash (PW-3), Dular Bai (PW-5), Bedan Bai (PW6) and Dr. Ramnarayan Singh (PW-14) who medically 5 examined the victims and given medical reports (Exs. P-18, P-20, P-21, P-22, P-24 & P-25), establish the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for the aforementioned offence which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the sentence part, keeping in view that the incident had taken place in the year 2008 i.e. about 17 years ago. The conviction of the appellants under section 325 was for Ganeshram's 5th metacarpal bone fracture. The appellants have no criminal antecedent. The appellants are facing the lis since 2008, they have already remained in jail for about 2, 32 days respectively and they have family responsibilities. Taking into consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to send back the appellants to jail and the ends of justice would serve if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants for offence under Sections 148, 325/149 & 323/149 of IPC is maintained and the sentences of RI for 6 months, RI for 1 year and RI for 6 months are reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 2, 32 days. However, fine amount for offence U/s 148 is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs. 2,000/-, fine amount for offence U/s 325/149 is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs. 3,000/- & fine amount for offence U/s 323/149 is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs. 1,000/-, respectively for each of the appellant. In default thereof, they shall liable to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months, 3 months & 1 month respectively. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Further, if any amount of fine 6 deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted in fine imposed upon them today by this Court. 12. The appellants are on bail. They need not 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 forthwith to the trial Court concerned for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham