1 2025:CGHC:32012 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1058 of 2008 1 - (Abated) Ramawatar S/o Chandram Dhruva (Died) (Deleted As Per Honble Court Order Dated 21.04.2025) 2 - (Abated) Darsu S/o Nandram Dhruva (Died) (Deleted As Per Honble Court Order Dated 21.04.2025) 3 - Parsu @ Nankun S/o Nandram Dhruva Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Dongaria. P/s - Lormi, Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Lormi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) _____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, PL For Complainant : Mrs. Premin Sahu, Advocate. _____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 10.07.2025 1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 24.11.2008 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., District- Mungeli (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 11/2008, wherein the said Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 458 of the R.I. for 01 year each and fine amount Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 IPC of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 07 days each. Under Section 460 of IPC R.I. for 01 year each and fine amount of Rs. 100/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 07 days each. (Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently) 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.12.2007 at about 7:00 pm, the complainant- Radheshyam was watching T.V. in his house along with his neighbours namely Manharan, Pappu and Bhuribai and at that time all the three accused persons made illegal trespass to the house of the complainant with wooden stick (lathi) by saying the complainant to call his son out namely Jogiram, who was watching T.V. at that time, the accused persons with an intent to humiliate abused by using filthy language, at that time the complainant asked his son, what happened, then the accused persons assaulted the complainant by wooden stick (lathi) on his body parts. The rest of the sons of the complainant namely Meluram and Manharan made an intervention to rescue of their father and somehow stopped the altercation. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a report before the Police Station-Lormi on 05.12.2007. During the investigation, medical examination of the complainant conducted and during medical examination doctor took X-Ray of his hand then the ulna bone of his left hand was found fractured and spot map was prepared and statements of all the witnesses were recorded. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the jurisdictional Magistrate who, in turn, committed the case for 3 trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under Sections 294, 506-II, 458 and 460 of IPC. The appellants having abjured guilt were subjected to trial. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellants examined as many as 07 witnesses, complainant (PW-1), Manharan Dhruv (PW- 2), Dr. R. S. Asam (PW-3), Hari Prasad (PW-4), Dr. Jorge M. Khaka (PW-5), Meluram (PW-6) and Tirathram Joshi (PW-7). The appellants/accused did not examine any witness in their defence. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case and pleaded their innocence and false implication in this case. 4. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considered the material available on record has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal. 5. According to the counsel for the accused, complainant Radheshyam had lodged a report against the appellants for which offence under Sections 294, 323, 506-B, 452, 34 of IPC was registered against them at Police Station- Lormi, District- Mungeli as Crime No. 191/2007 and the matter thereafter was committed to trial before the Court of Sessions Judge, Mungeli. 6. In pursuance of this Court’s order dated 05.03.2025, bailable warrant was issued against the appellants for their presence before this Court on 21.04.2025. On 21.04.2025, service report of bailable warrant shows 4 that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 namely Ramaawatar and Darsu have reached for heavenly abode during the pendency of this appeal, which is supported by the death certificate of respective appellants annexed with the report. Thus, in view of the death of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and in absence of any application for bringing their legal representatives on record, the appeal in respect of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 abates and the same is dismissed as abated. 7. However, on 21.04.2025, appellant No. 3 did not appear before this Court, therefore, this Court directed to the Registry to issue non- bailable warrant against appellant No. 3/Parsu @ Nankun through concerned Superintendent of Police for his presence before this Court on 23.06.2025. 8. In pursuance of this Court’s order dated 21.04.2025, appellant No. 3 appeared before this Court by concerned Inspector and Constable on 23.06.2025. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that complainant has filed an I.A. No.03/2025, which is an application for compromise and acquittal of appellant No. 3/ Parsu @ Nankun dated 04.07.2025 along with his affidavit to compound the offence and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone on the basis of compromise. 10. Both the parties have jointly submit that the appellant and the complainant have entered into compromise as the main accused persons namely Ramawatar and Darshu/ appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have 5 reached heavenly abode during the pendency of this appeal, thus the appeal is abated on behalf of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and the complainant and appellant No. 3/ Parsu @ Nankun have been amicably entered into compromise with their own free will and therefore, considering the application for compromising of both the parties, reduce the jail sentence of appellant No. 3 to the period already undergone by him. 11. Furthermore, out of maximum sentence of 01 year, the appellant has already remained in jail for more than 01 month. The incident occurred in the year 2007 and since the appellant No. 3 is facing the lis. The appellant is now aged more than 50 years; Therefore, considering all these facts, the jail sentence of the appellant No. 3 may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baldev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab (2011)13 SCC 705 1 and upon the judgment of this Court in the matters of Narendra Kuamr @ Chhotu vs. State of Chhattisgar2 and Sanjay Bachad vs. State of Chhattisgarh.3 12. Ex-adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant, however the offence under Sections 458 & 460 of IPC are non-compoundable, thus the application for compromise and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 1. (2011)13 SCC 705 2. CRA No. 166of 2007 3. CRA No. 223 of 2007. 6 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the complainant Radheshyam (PW-1), Dr. R.S. Ayam (PW-3), Hari Prasad (PW-4)), Dr. Jorge M. Khaka (PW-5), Meluram (PW-6) and Tirathram Joshi (PW-7), establish the involvement of the appellant- Parshu @ Nankun in the crime in question. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 458 & 460 of IPC, which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 15. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed an I.A. No. 03/2025 for compounding the offence along with the affidavit of the complainant- Radheshyam, in which it is mentioned that during the pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 1- Ramawatar and appellant No. 2- Darsu have reached heavenly abode and the appeal in respect of these two appellants has abated. The complainant Radheshyam is the victim in this case, a genuine and voluntary compromise has been reached between the appellant, complainant and the nephew of the accused/appellant No.3/Parsu @ Nankun. The parties have resolved their disputes amicably and without any coercion or undue influence. Copy of compromise application is annexed as Annexure D-1. In the light of this compromise, the complainant no longer wishes to pursue the charges against appellant No. 3, the compromise is in the best interest of both the parties and will promote peace and harmony. Therefore, the complainant wants to close the case against the appellant No.3. 7 16. On 08.07.2025, the parties were present before this Court. Pursuant to the Court’s order dated 08.07.2025, the statement of complainant – Radheshyam and appellant’s witnesses namely Deepak Dhruw and Mukesh Dhruw were recorded. The identification of complainant and appellant’s witnesses have been ensured by enclosing self attested copies of their Aadhaar Cards and by their learned counsel too. 17. Though the appellant No. 3 and the complainant- Radheshyam have entered into a compromise, the offences are not compoundable and therefore, I.A. No. 03/2025 is dismissed. 18. As regards sentence part, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baldev Singh (supra) in paras 4 and 5 as under:- 4. Section 376 is a non-compoundable offence. However, the fact that the incident is an old one, is a circumstance for invoking the proviso to Section 376(2) (g) and awarding a sentence of less than 10 years, which is ordinarily the minimum sentence under that provision, as we think that there are adequate and special reasons for doing so. 5. On the facts of the case, considering that the incident happened in the year 1997 and that the parties have themselves entered into a compromise, we uphold the conviction of the appellant but we reduce the sentence to the period of sentence already undergone by in view of the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) which for adequate and special reasons permits imposition of a lesser 8 sentence…...” 19. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) and taking into consideration the fact that the parties have themselves entered into compromise and also considering the fact that the appellant is facing lis since 2008, i.e., about 16 years and he has already remained in jail for more than 01 month. Appellant No. 3 is now aged more than 50 years;, the conviction of the appellant No.3 is hereby maintained, but the jail sentence awarded to the appellant No. 3 for offence punishable under Sections 458 & 460 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine amount and its stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. The appellant No. 3/Parsh @ Nankun is reported to be in jail, therefore, he be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. 21. The Trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL