1 2025:CGHC:13333 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 418 of 2007 1 - Dharmendra Kumar @ Bablu (Died and name deleted as per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 18-02-2025). 2 - Meghnath @ Manoj S/o Bhagirathi Aged About 22 Years Occupation - Welder (BSP) R/o Risalibhatha, P.O. - Newai, Distt. - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Aarkashi Kendra, Newai, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the appellants : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Appellants For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 20 /03/2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 sentence dated 28.04.2007 passed in S.T.No. 209/2006 whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting the appellants u/s 294 of IPC, convicted and sentenced them as under: U/s 325 of IPC : RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for 1 month. 2. During the pendency of appeal, appellant no.1 Dharmendra Kumar @ Bablu has died, therefore, his appeal stands abated by order dated 18.02.2025. Now the appeal of appellant no.2 Meghnath @ Manoj remains for adjudication and is hereby disposed of. 3. The case of prosecution, injured Mukesh Dewangan has lodged FIR in P.S. Newali to the effect that he is a motor mechanic and is a resident of village Resalibhatha. On 26.09.2005 at about 14:15 when he was coming to his village Resali, on the way near Chartanki some ladies were breaking iron bids and seeing this, Mukesh had asked them not to do this. On which, appellants Bablu and Meghnath and another accused Akhilesh (since deceased) who were standing there had altercated with Mukesh and hit him with hands. The Police registered offence and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. Since there was a counter case filed against the complainant who was accused of murdering appellants’ friend, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. The prosecution has in all examined 6 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents to prove its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication. After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court by impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 3 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of 2 years awarded to her u/s 325 IPC, they had already remained in jail for about 4 days. He submits that the incident took place in 2006 since then the appellants are facing the lis and this appeal is pending since 2007 and now they are aged about more than 40 years. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents reported against them and looking to the counter case already filed against the complainant and the injury sustained by him i.e., fracture of nasal bone, the sentence of the appellants under section 325 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It appears from the record that earlier there was a counter-case against the accused for committing the murder of appellants’ friend. 9. Having gone through the material available on record and the statement of injured witness P.W.1 who has stated that the appellants & another accused caused injury to him which stood firm by Dr. A.K. Mishra (P.W.2) and Dr. Badrinarayan Dewangan (P.W.6), this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 325 of IPC and it is hereby affirmed. 4 10. As regards the sentence of Appellants, considering the facts that the incident had taken place in 2005 about 19 years ago and as per Ex.P-3 injury has been caused and further considering the fact that the maximum jail sentence awarded to the appellants is RI for 2 years u/s 325/34 IPC, out of which, as stated by learned counsel they had already remained in jail for about 4 days and is facing the lis since 2005 and further looking to their present age as also considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against them, in the interest of justice and in the considered opinion of this Court, instead of again sending him to jail, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant no.2 Meghnath alia Manoj from 2 years R.I. to the period already undergone by him for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and enhance the fine of Rs.100/- as imposed by the trial Court to Rs.6000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo additional SI for 2 months. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. Appellant Meghnath is on bail. He need not again surrender in this case. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action. Sd/- Rao (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge