1 2025:CGHC:5869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 424 of 2007 1. Ramesh Kumar Pali, S/o Tirath Ram, aged about 31 years, R/o Maharajpur, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) (died) (appeal abated) 2. Tirath Ram alias Pusku, S/o Basakhu Pali, aged about 53 years, R/o Maharajpur, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham, (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant No. 2 : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.02.04 14:11:06 +0530 2 31/01/2025 1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.06.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kabirdham, Kawardha (C.G.), in Special Session Case No.48/2006 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 323 of IPC RI for 4 months (for causing injuries to complainant Sidhram) U/s 323 of IPC RI for 2 months (for causing injuries to complainant Rajo Bai) The sentences are directed to run concurrently 2. Vide PUD dated 06.10.2023, received from learned Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), it has been informed that Appellant No.1 Ramesh Kumar Pali, S/o Tirath Pali died on 28.03.2023. A Death certificate of the Appellant No.1 certified by Police Station In-Charge, Police Station Kawardha (C.G.) is also annexed with the said report. Learned State Counsel is also agreed with the above fact. 3. In view of above, as Appellant No.1 Ramesh Kumar Pali S/o Tirath Ram died on 28.03.2023, therefore, the appeal stands abated on his behalf. 4. As per the prosecution story, on the date of incident i.e. 18.07.2006, Sidhram was walking towards the road with his children when the accused, Tirath, asked him to come to his house to discuss a settlement. Sidhram went to the accused Tirath’s house, where he was talking to the accused Tirath and Ramesh, and Rajobai wife of Sidhram followed behind him. During this time, a dispute arose, and the accused started verbally abusing Sidhram, calling him 3 “Chamra Satnami” and using other derogatory terms. They then assaulted him with sticks. When Rajobai tried to intervene and stop them, she also got injured. During the assault, the accused threatened to kill Sidhram. Rajobai took her husband to the Kawardha police station, where she lodged the first information report (Ex.P-1A) about the incident. During the police investigation, a medical examination of complainant Rajo and Sidhram was conducted. A site inspection map was prepared. The sticks used by the accused were seized, and their medical examination report was obtained. Additionally, documents confirming the complainant’s Satnami caste were seized, and witness statements were recorded. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. 5. So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. The statement of the appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, two documents were exhibited by them in their defence. 6. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.06.2007, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for appellant No.2 submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He also submits that appellant no.2 is an old aged person currently aged about 70 years, he has already remained in jail for about 12 days. 4 The incident took place in year 2006 and since then the appellant is facing the lis. The appeal is pending since 2007. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence of appellant no.2 of the above offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in the interest of justice. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of appellant no. 2. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 10.Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of complainant Rajo (PW-7), Sidhram (PW-8) and Dr. Ajay Kumar Dhruv (PW-5), establish the involvement of appellant No.2 in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction of appellant No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 323 (two times) of the IPC. 11.As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place in the year 2006 about 18 years ago and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that appellant no. 2 is aged about 70 years at present, and he has already remained in jail for about 12 days and he is facing the lis since 2006, in the interest of justice, in considered opinion of this Court, it is appropriate to reduce the sentence of appellant no. 2 from R.I. for 4 months & 2 months to the period already undergone by him i.e. 12 days for the offence punishable under Sections 323 (two times) of IPC, ordered accordingly. 12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 5 13.The appellant no. 2 is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. 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. 14. 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, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Shubham