1 2025:CGHC:11873 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 215 of 2007 1 – Indrabhan, S/o Ajar Lal Satnami, aged about 27 years, R/o Sakin Village - Padkibhat, P.S.- Balod, District- Durg (C.G.) Now District- Balod 2 - Ajar Lal, S/o Munna Ram Satnami, aged about 50 years, R/o Sakin Village Padkibhat, Thana Balod, District Durg (C.G.) Now District Balod (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Balod, District Durg (C.G.) Now District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 10.03.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.12 14:28:15 +0530 2 of CrPC challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 237/2006, whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 325 of IPC (for Shivprasad) RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, 3 months additional RI. U/s 323 of IPC (For Janki) RI for 6 months 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 30.03.2006 when Shivprasad was scolding his children, Mahesh and Mukesh, telling them that since their exams were ongoing, they should go home and study. Appellant Indrabhan, who was sleeping on the platform of a Peepal tree nearby, misunderstood that Shivprasad was trying to drive him away. Assuming this, he started quarreling with Shivprasad and took him to Milan Hotel, where he assaulted Shivprasad on the head with a brick. At that moment, Shivprasad’s wife, Janki Bai, intervened to mediate, appellant Ajar Lal also arrived at the scene and both the appellants then assaulted Shivprasad and Janki Bai with sticks, causing injuries to both of them. Due to the assault, Shivprasad has also sustained fracture in Ulna bone. A report of the incident was lodged at Balod Police Station. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the appellants for offenses under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 were also 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. 3 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, altered/converted the offense from Section 307/34 of IPC to Sections 325 & 323 of IPC and 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 appellant Indrabhan is now aged about 46 years and appellant Ajar Lal is now aged about 69 years and have family responsibilities and they have already remained in jail for about 20 days. The incident took place in the year 2006 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. This appeal is pending since 2007. 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 statements of injured Shivprasad (PW-2), Janki Bai (PW-3) and Dr. B.L. Ratre (PW-9) and his reports (Exs.P-14 & P-15) and Dr. B.N. Dewangan (PW-14) and his report (Ex. P-5), 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 offence punishable under Sections 325 & 323 of IPC which is based on evidence available on record and it is hereby affirmed. 9. As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in the 4 year 2006 i.e. about 19 years ago. At that time, appellants Indrabhan & Ajar Lal were aged about 27 & 50 years respectively and now they must be aged about 46 years & 69 years respectively having family responsibility. The appellants are facing the lis since 2006 and they have already remained in jail for about 20 days. 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 325 & 323 of IPC is maintained and the sentences of RI for 1 year & RI for 6 months are reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 20 days. However, the fine amount of Rs. 500/- for offence U/s 325 IPC is enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- for both the appellants. 11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 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