1 2025:CGHC:7831 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 423 of 2007 • Raju Anchal S/o Achcheram Anchal, Aged about 25 years, Caste Suryawanshi, R/o Village Kesala, P.S. Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through: P.S. Pamgarh Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 13/02/2025 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir Champa C.G. in Session Case No. 51/2006, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 436 of IPC. R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 03 months. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.02.14 17:59:05 +0530 2 2 The case of the prosecution is that on 26.06.2004, Raj Kumar had a fight with the accused, Raju Anchal. On account of this rivalry, 28.06.2004, at around 1:00 pm, Raju Anchal went to the house of Raj Kumar, carrying a stick and a container of kerosene oil. He inquired about Raj Kumar from his wife, and when she replied that he was not in home, Raju threatened to beat her. Fearing for her life, wife of Raj Kumar fled from her house. Raju then poured kerosene oil inside the house and attempted to set it on fire. However, Lakhan Suryavanshi caught Raju Anchal and take him away. Sahodrabai (wife of Raj Kumar) informed Raj Kumar, who was sitting nearby, about the incident, and they all hid in fear. Later that day, at around 3:30 pm, Raju Anchal returned to the house of Raj Kumar and set the door and the thatched roof on fire using match box, burning down the entire house and its contents. The family hid behind the wall and watched in fear as the house burned. The next morning, on 29.06.2004, they filed a complaint at the police station, and a case was registered against the accused-Raju Anchal. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecutions have examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 08 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. 4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2007, the appellant has been convicted for the offense as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5 Learned counsel 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 3 year 2004, and thereby more than 20 years have rolled by since then. At present, the appellant is aged more than 45 years and he has already remained in jail for about 01 year 08 months 17 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 Raj Kumar (PW-5), Sahodrabai (PW-6) 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 the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC. 9 As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had taken place on 28.06.2004 about more than 20 years ago, he is currently aged about more than 45 years and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the appellant has no previous criminal antecedents and he has already remained in jail for about 01 year 08 months 17 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. 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 rigorous imprisonment for 05 years for the offence punishable under Section 4 436 of IPC. However, the fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain intact. 11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12 Appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. 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 Court below 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.