1 2025:CGHC:13321 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 645 of 20 07 1. Teju Ram @ Sundar Ram S/o Karan Sai Rajwar, aged about 34 years, R/o Village Nawagarh, P.S. Ambikapur, District-Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2. Karan Sai S/o Sohan Sai, aged about 75 years, R/o Village Nawagarh, P.S. Ambikapur, District-Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (appeal abated against him) ... Appellants versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station – Anusuchit Jati-Janjati Ambikapur, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant No.1 : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 20 / 03 /202 5 1 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 12.02.2025, appellant No.1-Teju Ram @ Sundar Ram is present in person before this Court. His presence be marked. 2 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 12.02.2025, a bailable warrant was issued against appellant No. 2-Karan Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.22 10:26:28 +0530 2 Sai returned unserved with a report of Office of Station In- charge, Police Station- Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) that appellant No. 2-Karan Sai died on 28.07.2014, and a death certificate has been attached to this effect. 3 In view of that, the appeal against appellant No. 2-Karan Sai stands dismissed as abated and the appeal is hereby heard and disposed of in respect of appellant No.1-Teju Ram @ Sundar Ram. 4 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.06.2007 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Ambikapur (Surguja), (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 116/2006 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced appellant No.1-Teju Ram @ Sundar Ram as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 323 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. U/s 342 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. (Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently). 5 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.09.2006 at about 7:00 am, complainant Anil Kumar and Suraj Kumar were going to Chanwaridand to attend the call of nature, on the way the one buffalo of appellant No. 1, unfortunately, hit one of the complainant, who abuse, hearing which a quarrel started between appellant No. 1 and complainant, which resulted in mutual fighting and exchange of blows between both the parties. It is also alleged that after such act, the accused persons tied complainant Anil Kumar with a rope and his brother after that the villagers and their mother arrived at the place of occurrence and they freed the complainant and his brother. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police. Based on 3 which, FIR was registered and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. 6 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. 7 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.06.2007, learned Judge has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Preventions of Atrocities) Act and Section 294 of IPC. However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned in para-4 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 8 Learned counsel for the appellant 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, appellant No.1 is aged about 52 years and he has already remained in jail for about 7 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 10 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 4 material available on record including the impugned judgment. 11 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Anil Kumar Ravi (PW-1), Dr. Azad Bhagat (PW-2), Smt. Sitabai (PW-3), Suraj Kumar Ravi (PW-4), Rampravesh Ram (PW-5), Pramod Kumar Bhimte (PW-6), Ravi Kumar Kurre (PW-7) and Shravan Kumar Ravi (PW-8), establishes the involvement of appellant No.1 in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of appellant No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 323 & 342 of IPC. 12 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2006 about 18 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that appellant No. 1 has no criminal antecedent and he has already remained in jail for about 7 days, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 13 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back appellant No.1 to jail. Hence, appellant No. 1 is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and 3 months for the offences punishable under Sections 323 & 342 of IPC respectively. However, a fine of Rs. 1000-1000 is imposed upon appellant No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 & 342 of IPC. The imposed fine amount by this Court today shall be payable by appellant No.1, failing which the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 1-1 month for each of the offences. 5 14 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 15 Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 16 Record of the trial Court be sent along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu