1 2025:CGHC:9939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 53 of 2007 • Chanesh Ram Rathiya S/o Munnu Ram Rathiya, Aged about 30 years, R/o Village Gindola Ramayan Depot, P.S. Bhupdeopur, District- Raigarh (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh through District-Magistrate, Raigarh (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. For State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 27/02/2025 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.11.2006 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 42/2006 whereby the learned 4th Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 326 of IPC R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs. 200/-; in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.03.04 10:53:57 +0530 2 01 month. U/s 341 of IPC R.I. for 03 months. U/s 323 of IPC R.I. for 06 months. (All the sentences were directed to run concurrently) 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 07.11.2005 at about 7:00 Pm in Village Gindola the cattle businessmen were standing in the village and written their names to one Bodhan Das. On the same day, at about 9 Pm, the cattle businessmen came and told that the appellant was quarreling with them though the villagers namely Bodhan Das, Nirmal Prasad, Heth Ram were went to settle the matter and after settling they were went their home. Thereafter the appellant caught hold the victim namely Chamrudas and covered his face with cloth and took him near the fertilizer deep land (Khatu Gadda) and assaulted him with knife in his chest though the victim has felt unconscious. After coming into conscious the victim came his house and told the matter to son Ram Das and other family members. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police Station Bhupdeopur and offence was registered against the present appellant under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 506-B of IPC. 3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the victim has examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 16 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 17.11.2006, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 506-B and convicted 3 and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5 Learned counsel appearing 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 incident is said to have taken place in the year 2005, and thereby more than 19 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about more than 49 years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 03 months, 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 on record including the impugned judgment. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Ramdas (PW-1), Baratbai (PW-2), Hethram (PW-3), Navchand Patel (PW-6), Dr. D.K. Tandon, Smt. Vimla (PW-15), Dr. A.M. Gupta (PW-17), 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 Sections 326, 341 and 323 of IPC. 9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 07.11.2005 about more than 19 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact 4 that the appellant has no previous criminal record and he has already remained in jail for about 03 months, 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 appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e., about 03 months instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 03 years for the offence punishable under Section 326, for 03 months for the offence punishable U/s 341 and for 06 months for the offence punishable U/s 323 of IPC. However, the fine amount of Rs. 200/- imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is hereby enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- which shall be payable by the appellant, failing which the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 06 months. Fine, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted in the fine imposed/enhanced by this Court today. 11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 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 back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Sourabh P.