1 2025:CGHC:3255 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 83 of 2007 • Gangaram, S/o Jagatram Gabel by Occupation Farmer, Aged about 39 years, R/o Village Aadil, Thana malkharoda, Distt. Janjgir Champa. ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Bhumika Kotecha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the Appellant. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 17/01/2025 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.01.2007 passed by the learned Special Session Judge, Janjgir Champa (C.G.), in Session Case No. 34/2006 whereby the learned Special Session Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 324 of IPC R.I. for 01 year 06 months with fine of Rs. 2,500/-; in default of payment Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.01.23 12:18:56 +0530 2 of fine amount additional R.I. for 03 months. 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.12.2004 at about 7:00 PM, complainant Laldas along with his wife going to Kothar, at that time, the accused/appellant Ganga Ram along with another person abused the complainant by his caste and also assaulted the complainant with a knife-like object, while his accomplice assaulted him with a stick and the younger brother of complainant was also assaulted by them when he came to intervene and save his brother. On account of which, complainant Laldas suffered injuries on his head and hand and his younger brother Tulsidas also suffered injuries on his hand. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a report and the offence was registered against the present appellant under Section 294, 506 part II, 324, 326, 326/34 of IPC and 3(2)(5) and 3(1)(x) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the victim has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents whereas, the appellant has examined only 01 witness and exhibited 04 documents in his defence. 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. 4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.01.2007, learned Judge has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 294, 506 part II, 326, 326/34 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 3 5 Learned counsel appearing 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 2004, and thereby more than 20 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged about 59 years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 07 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. 6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 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 Dr. Rama Ghosh (PW-3), Birit Das (PW- 04), Ms. Anita (PW-06), Victim (PW-07), Tulsidas (PW-10) and Santram (PW-11) establish the involvement of the appellant 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 appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. 9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 11.12.2004 about 20 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that a counter-case was also filed against the complainant party based on the accused/appellant’s report, in which they were also found guilty, further, the appellant has already remained in jail for about 07 days, this court is of the opinion that 4 the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 01 year 06 months for the offence punishable under Sections 324 of IPC. However, the fine amount of Rs. 2,500/- imposed upon the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is hereby enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. The fine amount of Rs. 5000/- shall be payable within a period of 60 days from today, failing which, the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 2 months. The fine, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted in the fine imposed/enhanced by this Court today. 11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 12 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. 13 Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Sourabh P.