1 2025:CGHC:9940 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 316 of 2007 1 - Amar Das, S/o Sudhu Ram, aged about 32 years, Occupation – Labourer, R/o Village – Kenapara, Police Station Jai Nagar, District Surguja (C.G.) 2 – Tula Ram, S/o Prem Ram, aged about 26 years, Occupation – Labourer, R/o Village – Kenapara, Police Station Jai Nagar, District Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Dhaneshwar, S/o Late Prem Ram, aged about 35 years, Occupation – Labourer, R/o Village – Kenapara, Police Station Jai Nagar, District Surguja (C.G.) 4 – Bhagwan Das @ Ramesh Chandra @ Bolbam (or Bambol), S/o Dhaneshwar Prasad, aged about 20 years, Occupation – Labourer, R/o Village – Kenapara, Police Station Jai Nagar, District Surguja (C.G.) 5 – Mangal Prasad, S/o Prem Ram, aged about 28 years, Occupation – Labourer, R/o Village – Kenapara, Police Station Jai Nagar, District Surguja (C.G.) … Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through - S.H.O. Police Station – Jai Nagar, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent/State Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.03.03 15:27:47 +0530 2 For Appellants : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer 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 07.04.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.), in Sessions Case No.61/2006 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : Conviction Sentence & Fine U/s 148 IPC RI for 6-6 months U/s 323 R/w Section 149 IPC (three times) RI for 6-6 months (three times) U/s 307 R/w Section 149 IPC RI for 5-5 years with fine of 300- 300, in default thereof, SI for 3-3 months U/s 506 Part 2 R/w Section 149 IPC RI for 6-6 months The sentences are directed to run concurrently 2. As per the prosecution story, complainant Harinarayan, son of Rambilas Gupta, lodged a First Information Report at Jaynagar police station stating that on 02.11.2005, at around 6:00 PM, he was having an argument with Amardas regarding passage rights. At that moment, Dhaneshwar, Tula, Mangal, Bambol, and Amardas, acting in unison, started assaulting him with sticks and an axe while also hurling abuses and threatening to kill him. During the assault, his wife sustained a head injury, which Amardas 3 inflicted with an axe. His sons, Deepak and Santosh, also suffered injuries, and he himself sustained an injury to his hand. The incident was witnessed by Lagan, Sunil, Pradeep, Arun, and Umesh. During the course of the investigation, sticks and an axe were seized from the possession of the appellants. The injured individuals were sent for medical examination. The medical report classified the injuries of the other victims as simple however, Nirmala Devi’s treatment continued for a significant period at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. According to the report (Ex.P-11), the injuries inflicted upon her were deemed life-threatening. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. 3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 22 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 , pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.04.2007, the learned Judge has convicted 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 appellants submits that there was a land dispute between the parties and both the parties had assaulted each other. A counter case has also been filed by the appellants against the complainants’ party. She further submits that the appellants have no premeditation for causing alleged injuries. Even otherwise if the Court finds the appellants guilty, it may be considered that there was a counter case filed by the appellants 4 against the complainants’ party, the appellants have no criminal antecedents, the incident took place in November, 2005 and since then the appellants are facing the lis. The appeal is pending since 2007 and appellant no.1 has already remained in jail for about 10 months 4 days and appellants no.2 to 5 have already remained in jail for about 6 months 15 days. Hence, it is prayed that the jail sentence of the appellants of the above offence 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, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the 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 Dr. Rose Villa Tirkey (PW-8) and medical reports submitted by her vide Ex.P-9, Ex.P-10, Ex.P-11, Ex.P-12 & Ex.P-13 and the evidence of Harnarayan (PW-1), Nirmala Devi (PW-3), Santosh Kumar (PW-2), Deepak (PW- 4), Pradeep Kumar Gupta (PW-5), 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 the conviction of the appellants for the aforementioned offences. 9. As regards the sentence of the appellants for offence under Section 307/149 IPC is concerned, keeping in view the facts that there was a counter case filed by the appellants’ party against the complainants’ party and according to the counter case documents (Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-7), complainant and victims of the case namely Harinarayan, Santosh, Deepak and Nirmala Devi have been convicted by the Trial Court for offence punishable under Sections 323 & 294 of 5 IPC vide its judgment dated 08.12.2006 passed in Special Session Case No.04/2006 (Ex.D-7). Further considering that the incident had taken place in November, 2005 about 19 years ago and the fact that the appellants have no criminal antecedents, appellant no.1 has already remained in jail for about 10 months 4 days and appellants no.2 to 5 have already remained in jail for about 6 months 15 days. They are facing the lis since November 2005, in the interest of justice, in considered opinion of this Court, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellants from R.I. for 5 years to the period already undergone by them i.e. 10 months 4 days & 6 months 15 days for offence punishable under Section 307/149 of IPC. However, the fine amount for offence U/s 307/149 of IPC is enhanced from Rs.300/- to Rs. 3,000/- for each of the appellants. The sentence of the appellants as regards the other offences is affirmed. Further, any amount of fine deposited by the appellants shall be adjusted in the amount of fine imposed upon them today by this Court. It is ordered accordingly. 10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11.The appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender in this case. 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. 12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Shubham