1 2025:CGHC:7112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 614 of 2007 1. Chandrakant Wakde S/o Natthu Ram Wakde, Aged about 42 Years, R/o Budhapar, Raipur, Tahsil and District-Raipur (C.G.). 2. Hemant Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Makhan Singh Thakur, Aged about 49 years, R/o Budhapar, Raipur, Tahsil and District-Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellants versus • The State Of Chhattisgarh Through – District Magistrate Raipur. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Dhirendra Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 07/02/2025 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.05.2007 passed by the learned 11th Additional Session Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 14/2007, whereby the learned Session Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : Conviction Sentence and Fine U/s 452 of IPC R.I. for 03 years 06 months and Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.02.10 17:38:39 +0530 2 fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof, S.I. for 03 months U/s 332/34 of IPC (two times) R.I. for 1-1 years U/s 342/34 of IPC (three times) R.I. for 3-3-3 months The Sentences are directed to run separately 2 The case of the prosecution is that on 25.09.2006, the present appellants/accused persons forcibly entered the office of R.N. Mishra, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur (C.G.). They assaulted and threatened him, his staff and a computer operator. The accused persons demanded that R.N. Mishra regularize them or else they would be killed. They also caused injuries to R.N. Mishra and others. The situation was brought under control when personal assistant of R.N. Mishra broke open the bathroom door and rescued them. The matter was subsequently reported to the Police Station and a written complaint was filed against the appellants and charge sheet has been filed under Sections 449, 307/34, 342/34 & 332/34. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. However, appellants have exhibited 04 documents in their defence. The statement of the appellants was 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 24.05.2007, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 449 and 307/34 of IPC. However, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable U/s 452, 332/34, 342/34 of IPC. Hence, the present appeal. 3 5 Learned counsel 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 2006, and thereby more than 18 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant No. 1 is aged about 60 years and appellant No. 02 is aged about 67 and the appellants have already remained in jail for about 10 months 06 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. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellants. 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, Ravindra Nath Mishra (PW-3), Ramkrishna Singh Rathore (PW-5), R.S. Iyer (PW-6), Rashmi Chawri Pandey (PW-7), Satish Shrivastava (PW-8) and Dr. Raziya Khatoon (PW-1), 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 452, 332/34 (two times), 342/34 (three times) of IPC. 9 However, the sentence of the Appellants for the offence punishable under Section 342/34 (three times) of IPC is hereby maintained. As regards the sentence for offence punishable under Sections 452 of IPC and Section 332/34 (two times) of IPC, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 25.09.2006 about 18 years 4 ago, the appellants currently aged about 60-67 years respectively and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellants have already remained in jail for about 10 months 06 days, the direction of the Trial Court “to run all the sentences separately” is hereby set-aside and the sentence of R.I. for 03 years 06 months & RI for 1 year for the offence U/s 452 of IPC and Section 332/34 (two times) of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 10 months 6 days. However, the fine amount imposed upon the appellants for all the offences by the trial Court shall remain intact. 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 continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 12 Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Arpan/Shubham