1 2025:CGHC:43020 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.178 of 2008 1 - Manharan Yadav, S/o Narad Yadav, aged about 35 years 2. Dilharan S/o Narad Yadav, aged about 28 years 3. Mansuram S/o Narad Yadav, aged about 26 years All R/o Village Sarkhor, Police Station Kasdo, District Raipur (C.G.) Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Kasdol, District Raipur (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Adiya Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. AG Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 25/08/2025 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2008 passed by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur in ST No.10/2007, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 05.12.2006 the accused persons assaulted the deceased with hand, fist etc., as a result of which the deceased sustained severe injuries and was hospitalized at Raipur Hospital and during treatment he died. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused persons. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and he is only challenging the sentence part of the impugned judgment. He further submits that the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2008, the appellants remained in jail for more than 1 year and have never misused the liberty granted by this Court and presently all the appellants are more than 45 years of age, therefore, the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 3 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellants under Sections 294, 506 Part-II and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellants under Sections 294 & 506 Part-II of IPC and convicted them under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants is not pressing this appeal on merits, but looking to the statement of the PW-7 complainant Hero Bai, wife of deceased Vishram Patel, PW-8 Rajeshwari and PW-9 Bhagchand, it is clear that the accused persons assaulted the deceased by club and PW-14 Dr. Yogesh K. Sharma, PW-5 Dr. Vikas Kumar Dhruw, who examined the decease, proved their medical reports vide Ex-P/13 and Ex-P/3. The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly acquitted the appellants of the offence under Sections 294 & 506 Part-II of IPC and rightly convicted them under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC in place of Section 302 of IPC. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court regarding the conviction of the appellants is hereby affirmed. 8. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2008, the appellants 4 remained in jail for more than 1 year and have never misused the liberty granted by this Court and presently all the appellants are more than 45 years of age, ends of justice would be served if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 9. The appeal is partly allowed. 10. The appellants are reported to be on bail. 11. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the Court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala