1 2025:CGHC:14911 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 612 of 2007 1 - Rajendra @ Rajju Son of Hirendra Vishal, aged about 34 years, by caste Kanwar, resident of village Peepar-para Police Station Mungeli, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Mungeli, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the appellant : Smt. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 27/03/2025 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 13.07.2007 passed in S.T.No. 60/2017 by the A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : Under section 323 of Indian Penal Code : RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months Under section 506-B of Indian Penal Code : RI for 4 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 6 months By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under section 341, 294 & 307 IPC holding that the said offences are not proved against the appellant beyond doubt. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.12.2005 at about 11.00 a.m., complainant Smt. Samadan along-with one Smt. Nirala Samuel was returning to her house after performing worship (Puja) at Girajaghar. At that time, on the way, at Mission Hospital Compound, Mungeli, the accused Rajendra stopped her, abused her in filthy language and further threatened to her life and hit her with a lathi, thereby she sustained injuries. Meanwhile, the persons present there namely Sunil and Smt. Nirala Samuel intervened the matter and got the injured admitted in Mission Hospital, Mungeli. On information being sent by the Hospital to the Police Station Mungeli, FIR was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has, in all, examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. 3 After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only to the sentence part. He also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 4 years awarded to him u/s 506 (Part II) IPC, he had already remained in jail for about 28 days. He submits that the incident took place long back in the year 2005, since then the appellant is facing the lis and this appeal is pending since 2007 and now he is aged about more than 53 years. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents reported against him. He prays that at this stage the sentence of the appellant under section 506 (Part-2) and 323 of IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by her 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. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. Having gone through the material available on record and the statement of complainant Smt. Samadan (P.W.1) which stood firm by the statements of eye-witnesses Smt. Nirala Samuel (P.W.2), Sunil 4 Walter (P.W.3), Fida Hussain @ Kalu (P.W.5) and further considering the medical evidence of Dr. N.R. Samuel (P.W.8) and other attending circumstances, which establish the involvement of accused, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/ss 323 and 506 (Part-2) of IPC and it is hereby affirmed. 8. As regards the sentence of Appellant Rajendra @ Rajju, considering the facts that the incident had taken place in 2005 about 19 years ago and the sentence awarded to him is RI for 1 year for the offence u/s 323 IPC and RI for 4 years u/s 506-(Part-2) IPC, out of which, as stated by learned counsel he had already remained in jail for about 28 days and is facing the lis since 2005 and further looking to his present age as also considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against him, in the interest of justice and in the considered opinion of this Court, instead of again sending him to jail, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentences of 4 years R.I. u/s 506- (Part-2) and 1 year RI u/s 323 of IPC to the period already undergone by him. This Court also feels appropriate to enhance the fine of Rs.500/- as imposed by the trial Court u/s 323 IPC to Rs.1000/- and further enhance the fine of Rs.1000/- imposed under section 506 (Part- 2) to Rs.5000/-. It is made clear that the fine amounts already deposited before the trial Court, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced amount which is hereby imposed by this Court. It is ordered accordingly. 5 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated here-in-above. 10. Appellant is on bail. He need not again surrender in this case. However, if the fine amounts are not paid within 60 days, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the fine amounts will be recovered in accordance with law. 11. 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 R a o