1 2025:CGHC:41129 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 602 of 2013 1 - Jugal Kishor, S/o Bhukhan Bargah, Aged About 60 Years, 2 – Prakash, S/o Jugal Kishor Bargah, Aged About 31 Years, Both of them are R/o Village Ramtala, P.S. Koni, Revenue & Civil Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Manish Thakur appears on behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 14/08/2025 1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2013 passed by learned IV 2 Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 106/2012 whereby the trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 307/34, 307/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10- 10 years with fine of Rs. 500/- - 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, each appellant shall undergo additional imprisonment of six months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the date of incident i.e. on 26/02/2012, the injured Manohar Bargah had gone to his field to graze his cow and buffalo. There, he saw that the accused were fencing his field with barbed wire with the intention of encroaching his field. When the injured tried to stop them to allow fencing of his field with barbed wire, the accused abused him with filthy language and threatened to kill him. Accused- Jugal Kishore assaulted the injured Manohar with the crowbar and accused Prakash assaulted him with the sickle, as a result of which, the injured suffered fatal injuries on the head, ear and shoulder. When Ishwar, son of the injured tried to intervene, he was also assaulted with the crowbar and sickle, due to which, he also suffered fatal injuries on his body. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away from the spot. The matter was reported to the Police Station- Koni and FIR was registered against the appellants. Medical examination of the injured persons were got done. During investigation, spot map was prepared. Accused were arrested and their memorandum statements were recorded. On the basis of their memorandum statements, seizures were made. After 3 completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. From there, the matter was committed to learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. Thereafter, the matter was received to the trial Court on transfer for trial. Learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 294, 506-B and 307/34, 307/34 of IPC against the appellants, to which appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, they did not adduce any evidence in their defence. 4. Learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellants under Sections 307/34 (two times) of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on sentence part. He submits that the appellants have filed interlocutory applications i.e. I.A. Nos.04/2022 and 05/2022, dated 09.03.2022 which is supported by the affidavit of complainant- Ishwar Bargah to compound the offence and reduce the sentence of the appellants awarded by the trial Court to the period already undergone by them on the basis of compromise. He further 4 submits that the appellants and the complainant/victim have executed compromise deed dated 09.03.2022. The incident took place in the year 2011 and this appeal is pending since 2013. Appellants have remained in jail for more than 1 year. Therefore, considering all these facts, the jail sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baldev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2011)13 SCC 705 and this Court’s judgment dated 06.05.2025 passed in CRA No. 166 of 2007 in the matter of Narendra Kumar @ Chhotu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellants for the alleged offence, however the offence under Section 307/34 (two times) of IPC is non-compoundable, thus, the application for compromise and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Dr. Santosh Udera (P.W.-7), Dr. K. Nehrel (P.W.-8), Dr. R. Jeetpure (P.W.-11) and Dr. Arunesh (P.W.-12) examined the victims and found that the injured Manohar and Ishwar Bargah sustained grievous injuries. 5 9. Having gone through the material available on record and the evidence of complainant- Ishwar Bargah (P.W.-1), Manohar (P.W.- 2), Ajay Yadav (P.W.-3), Amit Kumar (P.W.-4), Arun Yadav (P.W.-5) and Golu @ Santosh Shukla (P.W.-6) established the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 307/34 (two times) of IPC. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings so recorded by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellants for the alleged offence. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 307/34 (two times) of IPC is hereby affirmed. 10. Complainant and accused persons filed application for compromise which is supported by affidavit of complainant and also by compromise deed dated 09.03.2022 wherein it is mentioned that during the pendency of this appeal, the complainants have settled their dispute with the appellants. Therefore, complainants did not want to prosecute the instant appeal against the appellants. 11. Though the appellants and the victim/complainants entered into a compromise, but the offences punishable under Section 307/34 are not compoundable and therefore, I.A. Nos. 04/2022 and 05/2022 are dismissed. 12. As regards sentence part, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baldev Singh (supra) held in paras 4 and 5 as under:- 4. Section 376 is a non-compoundable offence. However, the fact that the incident is an old one, is a circumstance for 6 invoking the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) and awarding a sentence of less than 10 years, which is ordinarily the minimum sentence under that provision, as we think that there are adequate and special reasons for doing so. 5. On the facts of the case, considering that the incident happened in the year 1997 and that the parties have themselves entered into a compromise, we uphold the conviction of the appellant but we reduce the sentence to the period of sentence already undergone by in view of the proviso to Section 376(2)(g) which for adequate and special reasons permits imposition of a lesser sentence…...” 13. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) and taking into consideration the fact that the parties have themselves entered into compromise and they have settled their dispute and also considering this fact that both the appellants have remained in jail for more than 1 year; incident took place in the year 2011 and this appeal is pending since 2013, it would be appropriate that the jail sentence awarded to the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 (two times) of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine amount and its stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 15. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms 7 of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV