1 / 6 2025:CGHC:12371 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2067 of 2024 1 - Tiku Sahu S/o Amilal Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Borai, Police Station- Chuikhadan, District- Khairagarh- Chuikhadan-Gandai, C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Chuikhadan, District- Khaira- garh- Chuikhadan-Gandai, C.G. ---Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judgment on Board 12 .0 3 .202 5 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Shuraksha Sahita- 2023 by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh District Khairagarh Chuikhadan Gandai (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 05/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted un- Sentenced to 2 / 6 der Sections 170 r/w Section 34 of IPC R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, addi- tional R.I. for 15 days 171 r/w Section 34 of IPC R.I. for 3 months with fine of Rs. 200/- and, in default of payment of fine, addi- tional R.I. for 7 days 506 -II r/w Section 34 of IPC R.I. for 2 months with fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, addi- tional R.I. for one month 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC (three times) R.I. for 6-6-6 months with fine of Rs. 1000/-,1000/-,1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1-1- 1 month 384 r/w Section 34 of IPC R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, addi- tional R.I. for one month 427 r/w Section 34 of IPC R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, addi- tional R.I. for 10 months All the aforementioned sentences to run concurrently 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.10.2020, around pm, present appellant along with co-accused Balram @ Ballu Sahu, dis- guised themselves as police personnel and arrived at the homes of Netram Sahu (P.W.-1) and Tukaram Sahu (PW-2) in the village of Borai. They being accusing the victims of storing illegal liquor and they accompany them to the police station. The accused then stopped Netram and Tukaram in the middle of the road, physically assaulted them and threatened them to give Rs. 1,00,000/- to avoid being falsely implicated in the “Bhimpuri Murder Case” and “illegal liquor storage case.” The accused told to Netram to take money from his home and warned him not to disclose the incident to Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.03.20 16:21:15 +0530 3 / 6 anyone. When Netram returned home to ask his mother for money, she refused to give any money and called other villagers for help. The villagers, accompanied by Netram, went to the scene and at- tempted to rescue Tukaram from the accused. During the con- frontation, the appellant, Tiku Sahu, hit Shatrughan Ram Sahu on the head with a baton (Danda). The accused also smashed Tukaram’s mobile phone before fleeing the incident place. Later on, an FIR was lodged and registered against the accused including the present appellant on 27.10.2020. After completion of investiga- tion, the charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court against the appellants. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh Chuikhadan Gandai (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 03.07.2024, convicted the appellant for the aforementioned of- fences and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 5. The appellants were in judicial custody from 27.10.2020 till 24.05.2021 (7 months). He is in jail since 03.07.2024. The appel- lants served jail sentence 15 months. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. The judgment of the Trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned Trial Court ought not to have convicted and sen- tenced the appellant and ought to have given the benefit of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and 4 / 6 unbelievable. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sen- tence part thereof only. Further, he submits that the appellant at present is aged about 41 years and as he is facing criminal trial since 2020 and the appellant has already undergone more than 15 months awarded by the trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 05/2021. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appel- lant. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. He placed his re- liance upon the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the matters of Ajay Kumar Sarthi V. State of Chhattis- garh in CRA No. 243 of 2022, Pritam Patel Vs. State of Chhat- tisgarh in CRA No. 903 of 2015 and Yogendra Singh Markam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 1760 of 2022, the Cor-ordi- nate Bench has reduced the sentence to the period already under- gone, and therefore, similar relief may be extended to the appel- lants herein as well. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interfer- ence is called for. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10.From perusal of the records, it transpires that on 26.10.2020, around pm, present appellant along with co-accused Balram @ 5 / 6 Ballu Sahu, disguised themselves as police personnel and arrived at the homes of Netram Sahu (P.W.-1) and Tukaram Sahu (PW-2) in the village of Borai. They being accusing the victims of storing il- legal liquor and they accompany them to the police station. The ac- cused then stopped Netram and Tukaram in the middle of the road, physically assaulted them and threatened them to give Rs. 1,00,000/- to avoid being falsely implicated in the “Bhimpuri Murder Case” and “illegal liquor storage case.” The accused told to Netram to take money from his home and warned him not to disclose the in- cident to anyone. When Netram returned home to ask his mother for money, she refused to give any money and called other villagers for help. The villagers, accompanied by Netram, went to the scene and attempted to rescue Tukaram from the accused. During the con- frontation, the appellant, Tiku Sahu, hit Shatrughan Ram Sahu on the head with a baton (Danda). The accused also smashed Tukaram’s mobile phone before fleeing the incident place. 11. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted the appel- lants for the aforesaid offences and maximum sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years. 12. Considering the material available on record and the evidence ad- duced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the Trial Court did not commit any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by Trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants for the aforemen- tioned offences. 13.As regards the sentence awarded to him. Considering the fact that the appellant is facing criminal trial since 2020 and thereafter more 6 / 6 than 5 years has been elapsed, considering the age of the appel- lants at present and there is no previous criminal antecedents against him and further the appellant has already undergone 15 months of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, there would be no useful purpose to remain the appellant in jail as he has already suf- fered undergone sentence and also agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. So this Court finds it ap- propriate to reduce the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the period already undergone by the appellant of jail sentence (15 months). However, fine imposed by trial Court is maintained. 14.It is reported that the appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other cases. 15.With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly al- lowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 16.Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compli- ance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge Jyoti