1 CRA No. 68 of 2022 & CRA No. 685 of 2022 2025:CGHC:31667 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 68 of 2022 [Arising out of judgment dated 06.01.2022 passed in Sessions Trial No.208/2017 by the 8 th Additional Sessions Judge, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh.]  Sanjay Dubey S/o Uttam Dubey, aged about 39 years, R/o Village – Hirri, Police Station Bori, District Drug, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station – Pulgaon, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate. For State-Respondent :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate & Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer CRA No. 685 of 2022  State of Chhattisgarh, through – District Magistrate, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant versus  Sanjay Dubey S/o Uttam Dubey, aged about 39 years, R/o Village Hirri Police Station – Bori, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.07.14 10:50:06 +0530 2 CRA No. 68 of 2022 & CRA No. 685 of 2022 For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate & Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent :- Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 09/07/2025 1. Since these two criminal appeals have arisen out of the common impugned judgment dated 06.01.2022 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, District Durg, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 208/2017, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Assailing the legality, validity, correctness of order and judgment dated 06.01.2022 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No.208/2017, the appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2022 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, by which he has been convicted for offence under Section 353 of the IPC and sentenced therein to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of ₹ 500/-; in default of payment of fine amount the appellant has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month and also for offence under Section 332 of the IPC and sentenced 3 CRA No. 68 of 2022 & CRA No. 685 of 2022 thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine amount the ₹ appellant has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. However, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.685/2022 for enhancing the sentences awarded by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, District Durg, Chhattisgah, vide its judgment dated 06.01.2022 passed in Sessions Trial No.208/2017 to the accused Sanjay Dubey for the offence in questions. Prosecution Case:- 3. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 01.10.2017, when the Basant Khalko (PW-9) being a public servant was searching the Family Dhaba, at village Hirri, owned by appellant Sanjay Dubey, the appellant interfered with the functioning of the Government servant and also caused the injury to Constable Bheeshm Karait (PW-4) and thereafter, the appellant was arrested. Dehati nalsi and FIR were registered vide Exs.P/11 & P/12, respectively. Nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/9. Axe was seized vide Ex.P/2. 4 CRA No. 68 of 2022 & CRA No. 685 of 2022 4. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 5. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited documents, whereas, the appellant in defence has not examined any witness, but exhibited 4 documents. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which CRA No.68 of 2022 has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Furthermore, CRA No. 685 of 2022 has been preferred by the State for enhancing the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellant. 5 CRA No. 68 of 2022 & CRA No. 685 of 2022 Submission of the parties:- 7. Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence in question. He would also submit that the appellant has falsely been implicate in crime in question and, in alternative, he would submit that if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the appellant may be awarded the sentence the period already undergone by him i.e. 148 days. Thus, Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2022 filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed in part or in toto and Criminal Appeal No.685 of 2022 for enhancing the sentence filed by the State deserves to be dismissed. 8. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar and Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsels, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the looking to the criminal act of the appellant the sentence awarded by the trial Court is liable to be enhanced. As such, Criminal Appeal No. 685 of 2022 filed by the State deserves to be allowed and Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2022 deserves to be dismissed. 6 CRA No. 68 of 2022 & CRA No. 685 of 2022 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. Discussion and analysis:- 10. Taking into consideration the statement of the injured witness Bheesham Karit (PW-4), Police Constable, who has clearly stated in his Court’s statement that the appellant assaulted him by axe by which he suffered injury on the wrist of his left hand which is supported by the medical report (Exs.P/5 & P/6) proved by Dr. M.K. Parkar (PW-5) and as per medical reports, except the writ injury tow other injuries were found i.e. one injury was found on his (PW-4) forearm of right hand and scratch was also found on his right shoulder, however, Dr. M.K. Parker (PW-5) has stated that the injuries were simple in nature, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences in question and the finding recorded by the trial Court is correct and based on evidence available on record and therefore, I hereby affirm the said finding of the trial Court. 11. However, considering the fact that the appellant remained in custody for a period of 148 days, I award him sentence R.I. for 3 7 CRA No. 68 of 2022 & CRA No. 685 of 2022 months for offence under Section 353 of the IPC in place of R.I. for 6 months and for offence under Section 332 of the IPC, I award him sentence to the period already undergone by him i.e. 148 days in place of R.I. for 1 years, but, the fine amount shall remain intact. As such, the appellant has already completed his jail sentence. Appellant is stated to be on bail. He need not surrender. However, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as per provisions contained in Section 437- A of the CrPC. 12.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the finding recorded herein above, I do not find good ground to entertain Criminal Appeal No.685 of 2022 filed by the State for enhancing the sentence awarded by the trial Court to appellant Sanjay Dubey for the offences in question. Conclusion :- 13.In view of the above, discussion and analysis, Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2022 is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above and Criminal Appeal No.685 of 2022 is dismissed. 8 CRA No. 68 of 2022 & CRA No. 685 of 2022 14.Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/ /- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit