1 2025:CGHC:25368 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1507 of 2016 1 Tribhuvan Sahu S/o Padumlal, Aged About 60 Years R/o Charmudia, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 Gopiram Sahu S/o Balmukund Sahu, Aged About 31 Years R/o Charmudia, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Arakshi Kendra City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : None For Respondent/State : Shri U.K.S. Chandel Dy. A.G. and Shri R.C.S. Deo, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, Order on Board 18/06/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.08.2016 passed by the learned Upper Session Judge, Dhamtari JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.06.19 18:03:40 +0530 2 C.G. in Session Trial No. 01/ 2016, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under : Conviction Sentence In Default Under Section 279, 337 & 323/34 of IPC (for Appellant No. 1) Imprisonment of about 11/2 months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- respectively In default of payment of fine S.I. of 10 days, 5 days, 10 days respectively in addition. Under Section 323/34 of IPC (for appellant No. 2) Imprisonment of about 11/2 months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- respectively In default of payment of fine, S.I. of 10 days in addition. 2. According to the prosecution, on 13/11/2015 the complainant after the expiry of his duty hours was returning from Ratnabandha Square to his home situated at Rudri. In the meantime, while he was on the way, applicant-1 in intoxicated condition, driving a tractor bearing registration number CG-04 DT 8648 dashed the complainant. The complainant received injuries from the said collision. The complainant then apprehended the said vehicle near a furniture shop named "Dimond Furniture". On the vehicle there was co-accused and few women. These people use abusive language to the complainant. In the meantime constable Prashant 3 Pandey also reached the spot to whom they use foul language. The accused then beat these two people with blow of fist. The complainant then lodged a report against the accused. On the basis of the complaint made by the complainant, the Fir was registered. 3. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. The statement of the witnesses was recorded. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the competent Court. 4. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal. 7. The present appeal has been filed in the year 2016 on 30.01.2017 and 17.06.2025 no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. 8. Perused the record. 4 9. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellants taken a ground that they have been falsely implication in the case and it is a simple case of accident and no grievous injury has happened to any one. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the grounds taken by the appellants and would submit that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellants, which do not warrant any interference of this court. 11. PW- 3 SatyaKala Ramteke would submit that when she reached to the place of incident she saw the offending vehicle. She has stated that she saw the damaged vehicle of constable Krishna Kanhiya Patel. The similar is the statement of other witnesses, and they have corroborated the statements of each other. 12. After going through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as also the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses wherein they categorically stated against the accused persons in respect of the subject offence, it is evident that the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment which do not call for any interference of this court. 13. Accordingly, the CRA is dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti