1 CRA No. 665 of 2017 2025:CGHC:25880 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 665 of 2017 1 - Golu Kumar Yadav S/o Pardeshiram Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Khursipar, Laxman Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Dhaniram Yadav S/o Late Sahasram Yadav Aged About 46 Years R/o Khursipar, Laxman Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Uttam Kumar Yadav S/o Dhaniram Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Khursipar, Laxman Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Netram Yadav S/o Late Sahasram Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Khursipar, Laxman Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khursipar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.06.20 18:28:42 +0530 2 CRA No. 665 of 2017 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suresh Tandan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 19/06/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10/02/2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 440/2013 by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.), whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 323/34 of the IPC Till rising of the Court (TRC) and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. U/s 323/34 of the IPC Till rising of the Court (TRC) and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19.05.2012 at about 9:30 p.m. in Laxman Nagar, Chhawni, the daughter of appellant No. 2 was, after carrying water in a container from public tap, PW-2 Jogender Singh pushed her with his elbow to embarrass and teas her. Dhaniram with his brother Netram Yadav, son Uttam Kumar Yadav and Golu Kumar Yadav came at the place of incident and alleged to have hurled filthy abuses and assaulted PW-1 Rajendra Choudhary and PW-2 Jogendera Singh. On the basis of their report, a case was registered against the appellants. 3 CRA No. 665 of 2017 3. During investigation Spot map (Ex.P/2) was prepared. Statement of the Victim was recorded. Statements of witnesses were also recorded. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the 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 06 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. In defence, statement of Kaushal Yadav was recorded. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 10/02/2017 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the conviction against the appellants is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that Jogendra Singh pushed the daughter of appellant No.2 with bad intentions. It is a case of sudden provocation and right of self defence when the appellants have asked PW/2 Jogendra Singh about 4 CRA No. 665 of 2017 teasing and molesting the daughter of appellant No.2. In response, Jogendra Singh and other co-accused have assaulted the appellant No.4/ Netram Yadav. 8. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. From the evidence of PW/2 Jogendra Singh it is evident that the accused persons assaulted on his head as a result of which he sustained severe injury and also sustained fracture. This witness stated that the accused person abused in the name of mother and sister. When Rajendra Chaudary tried to intervene the accused persons also assaulted him. The said version of PW/2 if corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. 11. The doctor who conducted the medical examination i.e. PW/4 Dr. S. K. Agrawal and submitted his report Ex.P/5. He found one lacerated wound, abrasion and on the body of the Jogendra Singh. 12. Considering the material available on record, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10/02/2017 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) is just and proper, warranting no interference of this Court. 5 CRA No. 665 of 2017 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 14. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $ Bhilwar /`Gowri