1 2025:CGHC:20994 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1075 of 2007 Smt. Sharmila Roy W/o Dr. Suraj Narayan Roy, Aged About 30 Years R/o Khadpadipara, Janjgir, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. , ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 07/05/2025 The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa in ST No.45/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 452 of Indian Penal Code. RI for two years, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 03 months. Under Section 323/34 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 03 months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.9.2006 at around 11 o’clock complainant Maharathi Baghel was coming in a tractor loaded with bricks for construction of his house. However, the said tractor-trolley got stuck in the vacant land of accused SN Roy, so the bricks were being unloaded there only. At that time, accused SN Roy came to the house of the complainant and abused his wife Meenakshi filthily. When the complainant reached his house, he too was abused filthily by SN Roy. Accused SN Roy also attempted to attack on his head with a Ghan carried by the labourers but due to intervention by the labourers, SN Roy went back to his house. However, after some time he came back with his wife carrying three feet long sword and entered the house of the complainant for assaulting him. The persons present there pacified the matter or else he would have assaulted him. Wife of accused SN Roy i.e. the present appellant also threw bricks and stones into the courtyard of the complainant. They beat wife and child of the complainant. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate against the accused 3 persons and the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 452, 323/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 {in short “the Act of 1989”), to which the accused persons abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. Accused Sharmila Roy examined herself as DW- 1 and investigating officer Ajay Dubey as DW-2. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court while acquitting them of charges under Sections 294, 506 Part-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989, convicted and sentenced the accused persons as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal by the accused persons. However, during pendency of this appeal, accused/appellant No.1 SN Roy died and therefore, it stood abated in respect of appellant No.1 vide order dated 18.8.2015. 05. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. Learned trial Court did not appreciate the contradiction and omission in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. No independent witness was 4 examined by the prosecution. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that a counter case was registered against the complainant party and the same was still pending. The medical report does not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that accused/appellant SN Roy, against whom main allegations are there, has already expired and appeal in respect of him stood abated; the present appellant is a woman having no criminal antecedents; she was on bail during trial and even during pendency of this appeal and never misused the liberty; at the time of incident she was 30 years of age and at present is of about 48 years, therefore, instead of sending her jail she may be sentenced with enhanced fine amount. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the accused persons were charged under Sections 294, 506(2), 452, 323/34 of IPC 5 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court while acquitting the accused persons of the charges under Sections 294, 506(2) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989, convicted and sentenced them under Sections 452 and 323/34 of IPC. It also transpires from the record that as during pendency of this appeal, accused/appellant SN Roy died on 23.6.2015, the instant appeal in respect of this appellant stood abated. 09. PW-1 Maharathi Baghel, complainant, states that on the date of incident the tractor loaded with bricks got stuck in the mud and when he asked the labourers to unload half of the bricks there, accused Dr. Suraj Narayan Roy entered his courtyard and objected to unloading of bricks there. He further states that accused SN Roy abused him filthily and assaulted him with a Ghan which hit his left palm. During this process, accused Sharmila Roy came out of her house to the spot abusing him filthily and started throwing pieces of bricks lying in the lane at his wife Nisha Meenakshi, son Sahil and himself as a result of which they sustained injuries. 10. PW-2 Smt. Nisha Meenakshi Baghel, PW-3 Dinesh Kumar, PW-5 Ganesh Charan Tandon, PW-7 Radha Bai and PW-8 Makram have duly supported the statement of the complainant and stated that it is the accused persons who committed house-tresspass and assaulted the complainant party. All these witnesses remained firm in their cross- examination. 6 11. PW-6 Dr. Arvind Dwivedi medically examined the complainant Maharathi, his son Sahil and his wife Meenakshi Baghel and noticed simple injuries on their body vide medical reports Exs.P/5, P/6 and P/7. However, he did not notice any fracture sustained by any of the injured. 12. Considering the unrebutted evidence of the complainant and other witnesses coupled with medical evidence, as discussed above, it is clear that it is the accused/appellant Sharmila Roy who committed house-trespass in the house of the complainant with intention to cause hurt to him, beat his wife and child and also thew pieces of bricks at them as a result of which they suffered simple injuries. As such, her conviction under Sections 452 and 323/34 of IPC recorded by the learned trial Court being based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record needs no interference by this Court and this finding is hereby affirmed. 13. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the incident took place in the year 2006, appeal is pending since 2007; during pendency of appeal the main accused SN Roy expired and appeal in respect of him stood abated; the appellant is a woman; she was on bail during trial and even during pendency of this appeal and never misused the liberty; she has no criminal records; at the time of incident she was 30 years of age and at present is of about 48 years, this Court is of the opinion that though she has not remained in jail for a single day but at this stage it would 7 not be proper to send her jail and the ends of justice would be met if she is sentenced to till rising of the court and directed to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.10,000/- under Section 452 of IPC with default sentence and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323/34 of IPC with default sentence. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellant awarded by learned trial Court under Sections 452 and 323/34 of IPC is hereby maintained. Her sentence under Section 452 of IPC is modified and she is sentenced to till rising of the Court and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- whereas under Section 323 of IPC she is directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The fine amounts be deposited within a period of two months from today or else she shall suffer RI for six months and one month respectively. She is reported to be on bail, therefore, her bail bonds shall continue for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.05.08 15:28:26 +0530