1 2025:CGHC:11875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 467 of 2007 1 - Udho Shyam S/o Dassu @ Damu Sonkar, aged about 48 years, R/o Dayalband, Sonkar Muhalla, P.S. City Kotwali, Distt - Bilaspur C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. City Kotwali, District Bilaspur ... Respondent(s) For the appellant : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 10/03/2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.04.2007 passed in Sessions Case No. 380 of 2006 by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 u/s 294 IPC : RI for 3 months and fine of Rs.100/- , in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 7 days. u/s 323 IPC : RI for 3 months and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 7 days. u/s 436 IPC : RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month. u/s 456 IPC : RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 1 month. . 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant works as a cook. On the date of incident 08.09.2006, when she was at home, the accused came there and started abusing her mother and sister in front of the house. When complainant tried to stop him from abusing them, the accused did not listen to her and continued to abuse them. At the same time, her brother Pravin came there and when he tried to stop him from abusing, the accused got angry at him too and started abusing him and hit him with a brick-bat. Praveen sustained an injury over his left eye-brow and blood oozed out. Then Praveen and complainant went to the Police Station to file a report. The accused broke opened the lock, entered their house and took out clothes etc., from the cupboard and set them on fire. Complainant’s father Manohar Lal who was living nearby informed about the burning of clothes at the Police Station. People have seen the incident. The accused also caught hold of the complainant and slapped her. A report 3 of the incident was filed in the Police Station vide Ex.P-1. During investigation, seizure memos, spot map and Panchnama regarding property damage for Rs.100/- were prepared and injured Pravin was medically examined and accused was arrested. After completing investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has in all examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 4. 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 also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 7 years awarded to him u/s 436 IPC, he has already remained in jail for about 2 years and 17 days. He submits that the incident took place in September, 2006, since then the appellant is facing the lis and this appeal is pending since 2007 and now he is aged about 67 years. He further submits that the appellant is an illiterate person and there are no criminal antecedents against him. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of the appellant under section 436 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. Complainant Shobha Devi (P.W.1) has stated that the accused came to her house in the night and abused her and thereafter when her brother Pravin came and tried to stop accused from abusing her, accused caused injury to her brother. Injured Pravin (P.W.2) has also stated that when he tried to pacify the accused, he abused him and hit him with a brick-bat thereby he sustained injury over his left eye-brow. The statement of injured Pravin (P.W.2) stood firm by the Dr. R.K. Upadhyay (P.W.8). Manoharlal (P.W.3) who is father of complainant has further corroborated the statements of P.W.1 & P.W.2. He has also stated that the residents of locality informed him about the burning of clothes by accused at the house of complainant. 8. Having gone through the material available on record and the court statements of complainant (P.W.1), injured Pravin Sonkar (P.W.2), Dr. R.K. Upadhyay (P.W.8) and Manohar Lal (P.W.3) this Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant. 9. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in 2006 about 19 years ago and further considering the fact that the maximum sentence awarded to him is RI for 7 years , out of which, he has already remained in jail for about 2 5 years and 17 days and is facing the lis since 2006 and further looking to his age and considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against him, in the interest of justice and in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant from R.I. for 7 years to the period already undergone by him i.e. 2 years and 17 days for the offence punishable under Section 436 IPC. However, the fine amounts imposed against him shall remain intact. It is ordered accordingly. It is made clear that conviction for the other offences under sections 294, 323 & 456 is also maintained and the sentence thereof is set off from the custody period already undergone. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 11. The appellant is on bail. He need not again surrender in this case. His 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. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao