1 2025:CGHC:16332 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 816 of 2012 1 - Madhusudan Verma, S/o Juthel Verma Aged About 48 Years 2 - Ramkumar S/o Naresh Aged About 38 Years, Caste Nai, 3 - Gajendra Verma S/o Radheshyam Verma Aged About 24 Years 4 - Shailesh Verma S/o Ratanlal Verma Aged About 33 Years All R/o Village Sukhatal, Police Station Kawardha, Tah. Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham C.G., ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Kabirdham C.G., ... Respondent For Applicants : Shri Shantam Awasthi appears on behalf of Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondent/State : Smt. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 07/04/2025 Heard. 1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.21/2011 whereby the appeal of the applicants has been dismissed while affirming the judgment dated 03.05.2011 passed in Criminal Case No.201/2008 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kabirdham convicting the applicants under Sections 294, 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to pay fine of Rs.300 – 300/- under Section 294 IPC and Rs.500 – 500/- under Section 323/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional imprisonment for 15 days and one month respectively while acquitting them of the charge under Section 506B of IPC. Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.04.09 10:43:41 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.10.2007 at about 3.00 pm, at village Sukhatal, there was a Gram Sabha in front of Panchayat building and in the said meeting, the complainant – Dhruv Ram Sahu, being Panchayat Secretary, was present. After meeting, the applicants were quarrelling with each other, which was forbidden by the complainant. At about 4.00 pm, the applicants abused the complainant filthily and assaulted him by piece of stone over his head and one Kanshiram tried to pacify the same, the applicants also assaulted him. A report was lodged by the complainant at Police Station Kawardha. On such report, offence under the aforesaid Sections 294, 323, 506/34 IPC has been registered against the applicants under Crime No. 386/2007. The injured/complainant as well as Kanshiram were medically examined by Dr. M.P.Maheshwar (P.W.3). Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P.3 during course of investigation.. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha. The applicants abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty. 4. The Court of CJM and appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in Para 1 of this order. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the statement of complainant P.W.5 Dhruvram Sahu does not inspire confidence and unreliable and that his evidence was not supported by other prosecution witnesses to connect the applicants in crime in question. The other witnesses, who were also present there and witnessed the incident, have not been examined by prosecution and more so, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, he submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence on record, have erred in convicting and sentencing the applicants, which is not sustainable. On these premises, he urged that the applicants be acquitted of the charges levelled against them while allowing the revision. 3 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the revision and submits that although the State has not filed appeal or revision against the impugned judgment, but the statement of P.W.5 Dhruvram Sahu cannot be brushed aside as it was fully corroborated by the statement of P.W.1 Kanshiram and that of medical evidence of P.W.3 Dr. M.P.Maheshwar, who proved M.L.C. report vide Ex.P.2-A. He further submits that after appreciating the evidence available on record, both the learned Courts were right in convicting the applicants and while convicting them as such, adopted a lenient view in imposing fine sentence only. Therefore, judgments passed by the trial Court and appellate Court do not call for interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. To appreciate the arguments, I shall firstly deal with the evidence of complainant P.W.5 Dhruvram Sahu, who is the injured eye witness to the incident. He has stated that on the date of incident, meeting of Gram Sabha was going on, in which, differences and disputes arose with respect to construction works. Meanwhile, the applicants, in furtherance of their intention, started abusing him and assaulted him even after chasing him. Thereafter, they thrown him down and he got injured on his head when applicant No.2 hit him with a brick. This apart, all the four applicants beat him and abused him in furtherance of their common intention, threatened him to kill by saying that he was not working according to their wishes and again assaulted him after chasing him and in order to save his life, he ran over to Kanshiram Verma’s (P.W.1) place and shouted for help where the accused persons also came over there and were pulling him to kill him. In cross-examination also, this witness has further stated that on account of abusing and disputing by the applicants, he stopped to work and left there and as soon as he reached near banyan tree, they came and picked him up and thrown him to down and committed maarpeet. The statement of this witness was fully corroborated by P.W.1 Kanshiram Verma and P.W.2 Motiram by stating that P.W.5 complainant/injured Dhruvram Sahu was assaulted by the applicants and on account of such assault, he got head injury. 4 Moreover, the statement of P.W.5 Dhruvram Sahu also finds corroboration from the evidence of P.W.3 Dr. M.P.Maheshwar, who has stated that he medically examined the complainant on 25.10.2007 and on examination, he found four injuries including abrasions and contusions over his head and knees and that apart, P.W.3 Dr. M.P.Maheshwar also proved M.L.C. report (Ex.P. 2) 9. Besides above evidence, there is one more witness, i.e., P.W.6 R.K.Mishra, Assistant Sub-Inspector, who has stated that on the basis of report of the complainant, he recorded the F.I.R. vide Ex.P.8 and sent the injured persons to Government Hospital, Kawardha for treatment. Perusal of his statement would show that soon after the incident, the F.I.R. has been lodged without any delay and thus duly supported the prosecution case. 10. A bare perusal of above evidence led by the said prosecution witnesses would show that the applicants, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted and caused simple injury to the complainant Dhruvram Sahu (P.W.5). The statement of P.W.5 complainant Dhruvram Sahu was also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1 Kanshiram Verma, P.W.2 Motiram, P.W.3 Dr. M.P.Maheshwar and P.W.6 R.K.Mishra, Investigating Officer and the same is fully reliable and trustworthy. 11. On scrutiny of the above evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and both the Courts were fully justified in convicting and sentencing the applicants, which do not call for any interference by this Court. 12. Consequently, the revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani