1 2025:CGHC:12935 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 973 of 20 08 • Shiv Mangal S/o Shri Ramdas Rajwade aged about 36 years, Occupation – Labour, R/o Village Kailashpur, P.s. Sonhat, District – Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: P.S. Sonhat, District – Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate with Mr. Vikash Gritlahre, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 18 / 03 /202 5 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koriya (Baikunthpur), (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 126/2007 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.20 10:36:18 +0530 2 Conviction Sentence U/s 307 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional imprisonment for 3 months. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.10.2007 at about 1:00 pm, on some previous dispute, the appellant started abusing the victim Shiv Prasad and also assaulted him with the help of an axe, due to which the victim sustained injuries on left shoulder and neck. Complainant Shiv Prasad lodged a complaint, on the basis of which FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1, after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2008, learned Judge has acquitted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506 (2) of IPC. However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the injured suffered only 2 injuries, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2007, and thereby more than 17 years 3 have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about 53 years and he has already remained in jail for about 2 years, 1 month and 4 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Shivprasad (PW-1), Smt. Dilbasiya (PW-2), Arjun (PW-3), Vishwanath (PW-5), Smt. Premlata Rajwade (PW-6), Heera Lal (PW-7), Vijay Tiwari (PW-8), A.R. Manikpuri (PW-11), Virendra Singh (PW-12) and Dr. N.P. Bhargav (PW-13), establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2007 about 17 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the appellant has no criminal antecedent and he has already remained in jail for about 2 years, 1 month and 4 days, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it 4 appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. However, the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs. 5000/-. The imposed/enhanced fine amount by this Court today shall be payable by the appellant, failing which the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 4 months. Fine, if any, deposited by the appellant the same shall be adjusted to the fine imposed/enhanced by this Court today. 11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12 Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 13 Record of the trial Court be sent along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu