1 2025:CGHC:10545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 20 of 2007 1. Ramesh Thawait, S/o Bhaiyaram Thawait, Aged about 38 years, R/o Village Kargi, Police Station Kasdol, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2. Naresh Kumar Thawait, S/o Shri Bhaiyaram Thawait, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Kargi, Police Station Kasdol, District-Raipur (C.G.). (Died and abated). 3. Chhotelal Thawait, S/o Shri Bhaiyaram thawait, Aged about 32 years, R/o Village Kargi, Police Station Kasdol, District-Raipur (C.G.). 4. Makhan Lal Thawait, S/o Shri Bhaiyaram Thawait, Aged about 50 years, R/o Village Kargi, Police Station Kasdol, District-Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellants versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kasdol, District- Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 04/03/2025 1 As per order of this Court dated 11.01.2019, during pendency of this appeal, Appellant No. 2 Naresh Kumar SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.03.07 10:11:54 +0530 2 Thawait died on 01.07.2016 and appeal with regard to Appellant No. 2 has already been abated. 2 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Raipur (C.G.), in Special Criminal Case No. 13/2005 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: Conviction Sentence A-1(Ramesh Thawait ) U/s 323 of IPC S.I. for 06 months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 15 days. A-3 and A-4 (chhotelal Thawait and Makhan Lal Thawait) U/s 323/34 of IPC S.I. for 06-06 months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional S.I. for 15-15 days. 3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.11.2004, at about 07 Pm, the complainant Budhram Kargi was at his tire puncture shop and was fixing a punctured motorcycle tire with his son Raju, when the appellants with common intention have abused and assaulted the complainant Budhram due to a previous grudge and threatened to kill him. Thereafter, the complainant has lodged report against the present appellants at Police Station-Kasdol and the offence was registered against the present appellants under Sections 294, 323, 427/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the complainant has examined as many as 11 3 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. The statement of the appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case and have examined 01 witness and exhibited 03 documents in their defence. 5 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2006, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 427/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act and convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6 Learned counsel appearing for the appellants 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 2004, and thereby more than 20 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellants namely Ramesh Thawait (A-1) is aged about more than 58 years, Chhotelal Thawait (A-3) is aged about more than 52 years and Makhanlal Thawait (A-4) is aged about more than 70 years and the appellants have already remained in jail for about 08 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for 4 appellants. 8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment. 9 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Mohanmati (PW-1), Complainant Budhram (PW-2), Rajesh Kumar (PW-3), Parmeshwari (PW-4), Rajeshwari (PW-6) and Dr. Y.K. Sharma (PW-10), establish the involvement of the appellants 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 appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 323/34 of IPC. 10 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the incident had taken place on 26.11.2004 about more than 20 years ago and the appellants have already remained in jail for about 08 days, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 11 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellants to jail. Hence, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them i.e., 08 days instead of suffering simple imprisonment for 06-06 months for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 323/34 of IPC. However, the fine amount of Rs. 500/- imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 323/34 of IPC is hereby enhanced to Rs. 1000/- which shall be payable by each of the appellants, failing which the appellants shall be liable to undergo S.I. for 03 months. Fine, if any, deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted in the fine imposed/enhanced by this Court today. 5 12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 13 Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 14 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.