1 2025:CGHC:4007 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 395 of 20 11 • Suraj Kumar Chelak S/o Kolchand Chelak aged about 30 years, R/o Dhanuoud, O.P. Anjora, P.S. Pulgaon, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station – O.P. Anjora, P.S. Pulgaon, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 22 / 01 /202 5 1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.12.2010 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg, District - Durg (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 75/2010 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.01.29 16:53:21 +0530 2 U/s 436 of IPC (five times) Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years (five times) with fine of Rs. 100/-, (five times) in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 1 month (five times). 2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.05.2010 at about 00:30 am, the appellant set fire to the house of complainant Sunder Lal Chaturvedi along with four other persons, at that time when the complainant woke up to attend the call of nature then he saw the appellant and used filthy language against the appellant hearing on this the appellant ran away from the spot. The matter was reported to the police and FIR was registered. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant. 3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 18 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 31.12.2010, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence 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 year 2010 and thereby more than 14 years have rolled by since then. During the trial, 3 the complainant party filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. on account that the complainant and the appellant had entered into a compromise, but the application was rejected vide order of the trial Court dated 11.10.2010 on the ground that the offence of Section 436 of IPC is not a compoundable offence. He further submits that at present, the appellant is aged about 44 years and he has already remained in jail for about 14 months, 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 available on record including the impugned judgment. 8 Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of the witnesses Sunder Lal (PW-1), Devraj Chaturvedi (PW-2), Lekhram Sinha (PW-3), Savat Ram Dewangan (PW-4), Vishal (PW-6), Latkhor (PW-8), Chandraprakash (PW-9) and Santosh (PW-10), 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 conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC (five times). 9 As regards sentence, keeping in view of the facts that the complainant party and the appellant had already settled their dispute amicably and the incident had taken place in the year 2010 about 14 years ago and further considering 4 the facts and circumstances of the case and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 14 months, 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, appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 3 years (five times) for the offence punishable under Section 436 (five times) 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. 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 trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu