1 2025:CGHC:13728 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 493 of 2008 1. (Died And Deleted), Bharat, As Per Honble Court Order Dated. 5/01/2024. 2. Rakesh Kumar S/o Bharat Chandel Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Village Raahod, P.S. - Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant No.2 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 21 / 03 /202 5 1 Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 06.03.2025, appellant No.2 is present in person before this Court. His presence be marked. 2 Vide order of this Court dated 05.01.2024, the appeal against appellant No. 1-Bharat has been abated due to his death. 3 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.03.22 15:33:58 +0530 2 conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2008 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir, (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 239/2007 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced appellant No.2 as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 326 r/w Section 34 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 3 months. 4 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Narendra Kumar (PW-6) lodged a report in police station Shivrinarayan, alleging therein that on 17.06.2007 at about 11:30 am, when he went to inspect the work at Jogwadabri, where the work of measuring of digging, was going on under Gramin Rojgar Guarantee Yojna, at that time, the accused persons came there armed with axe and iron rod and assault Laxmikant (PW-10) on account of giving witness in another case, due to which the injured sustained grievous injuries. On the basis of complaint, FIR was lodged and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. 5 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 20 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. 6 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2008, learned Judge has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 3 However, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence as mentioned in para-3 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 7 Learned counsel for appellant No. 2 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 2007, and thereby more than 17 years have rolled by since then. At present, appellant No. 2 is aged about 40 years and he has already remained in jail for about 89 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. 8 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant. 9 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 10 Dr. K.N. Choudhary (PW-17), of SIMS Hospital, Bilaspur has stated in his evidence that on 17.06.2007, injured, Laxmikant was referred from P.S.C. Shivrinarayan and was admitted in SIMS Hospital. According to this witness, CT scan of the head and sonography of the abdomen of the injured were conducted and as per the reports, the injured was treated. He also stated that during the examination of the injured, he found that there was a bone fracture on the left side of the head. There was a ruptured injury in the liver due to which blood was oozing out inside the abdomen. Dr. Anil Pratap Singh (PW-12), SIMS Bilaspur 4 stated that on 18.06.2007, injured Laxmikant was sent to the Radiology Department by Dr. Chaudhary of the Surgery Department, SIMS for X-ray examination, and under his supervision, X-ray of the chest, abdomen and spine of the injured was done. According to this witness, in the X-ray report (Ex.P-9), a bone fracture was found in the 9th rib of the right side of the Chest of the injured. And CT scan was advised for the head injury. Dr. Dipika Minj (PW-14), has stated that on 18.06.2007, in SIMS Hospital itself a CT scan of injured Laxmikant was done by a technician under her supervision, in CT Scan report (Ex.P-12) there was a fracture in his left frontal bone and a fracture in the bone above the left abdomen and in the medial wall, and the brain was normal. 11 Having gone through the material available on record and the above medical evidence of the witnesses and evidence of witnesses Daksh Kumar (PW-1), Basanti Bai (PW-8), Laxmikant Patel (PW-10), B.R. Suryavanshi (PW-13), Koushal Kumar (PW-15) and M.S. Baghel (PW-16), establishes 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 the conviction of appellant No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 12 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the 2007 about 17 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that appellant No.2 has no criminal antecedent and he has already remained in jail for about 89 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. 5 13 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to send back appellant No.2 to jail. Hence, appellant No.2 is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w Section 34 of IPC. However, the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed by the learned trial Court upon appellant No. 2-Rakesh Kumar is hereby enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-, in default of payment of the enhanced/imposed fine amount by this Court today, appellant-Rakesh Kumar shall be liable to undergo R.I. for 1 year. Fine, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted. 14 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 15 The appellant is on bail. If the fine is not deposited within 90 days from today, the appellant's bail bonds shall stand cancelled, and the fine will be recovered as per law. 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