1 2025:CGHC:57742 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 833 of 2002 Judgment reserved on 25.08.2025 Judgment Delivered on 27.11.2025 1. (Deleted) Gatpalli Laxamaiya (Died) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 08-01-2025. 2. (Deleted) Ramu Soni (Died And Abated) (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 28/11/2024). (Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 08-01-2025. 3. Gatpalli Hadama S/o Earra Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Usur, P.S. Usur, Distt. Bastar (At Present Dantewada) Chhattisgarh 4. (Deleted) Ishu (Died) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 08-01-2025. 5. (Deleted) Suresh Chand Dubey (Died And Abated) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 28/11/2024. (Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 08-01-2025. 6. Shiv Kumar Dubey S/o Suresh Chand Dubey Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Usur, P.S. Usur, Distt. Bastar (At Present Dantewada) Chhattisgarh 7. Jhadi Berdam S/o Jhadi Laxamaiya Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Usur, P.S. Usur, Distt. Bastar (At Present Dantewada) Chhattisgarh 8. (Deleted) Gatpalli Dhamaiya (Died) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 08-01-2025. ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Usur, Distt. Bastar (At Present Dantewada) Chhattisgarh SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.11.27 17:37:42 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Justice Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas C A V Judgment 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2002 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar Jagdalpur in Sessions Case No. 324/1999 by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 353 of IPC read with Section 149 IPC and 323 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- each in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 1 month under Section 353 read with Section 149 IPC, to pay fine of Rs. 50/- each in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 15 days. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant made a written complaint in police Station Usur alleging that it was a Holi festival on 05.03.1996 at about 4-5 PM, 15 -20 persons along with Appellant No. 1,4 and 7 had come at Usur Nursery at that time, Appellant No. 4 after jumping the fencing entered into nursery and tried to make colour on one lady then the forest guard stopped to do so, on this appellant No. 4 committed marpit with forest guard. It is also case of the prosecution, that the about 10-15 members of holi party started abusing them and committed marpit with forest Guard and labourers also. During investigation, Station House 3 Officer with staff proceeded towards Village where he asked the villagers how many people had assaulted the forest guard, the villagers including appellants surrounded the police with lathi, sticks and started assaulting them by saying “Netagiri Nahi Chalegi”. It is also case of the prosecution that during scuffle, appellant Hidma assaulted the constable with Tangiya which he stopped with his rifle in his defense, as a result of which his head was injured, subsequently he fired on air then the villagers fled from the spot. In the said altercation, the Police receiving injuries returned to Police Station with staff and was admitted in PHC Usur for treatment. On the basis of written complaint, FIR (Ex.P-17) was registered against the appellants for commission of offence Sections 147,148,149,186,307,332 IPC. 3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur who in turn committed the case to the Court of Additional Session Judge, Bastar which was registered as Sessions Case No. 324 of 1999. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses, K. Shanti Murti (PW-1), Pati Munni (PW-2), Bhima (PW-3), Bhadruram (PW-4), Madhav Singh (PW-5), Dr. Sanjay Rana (PW-6), Dr. Kiran Netam (PW-7), R. Khileshwar Prasad Sahu (PW-8), Morla Samma (PW-9), Shekh Ibrahim (PW-10) and Gundhar Kashyap (PW-11) and exhibited documents from Ex.P-1 to Ex. P-19. The accused did not examine any witnesses in their support. Statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. 4 5. Injured constable Madhav Singh (PW-5) deposed before the Court that after registration of FIR of earlier incident, he along with the police staff went to village i.e. the place of incident where appellants along with the villagers having danda, Tangi in their hands committed marpit with them and also abused by saying that “Neta Giri Nahi Chalegi”. He further deposed that in the scuffle, he has received injuries on his body and he identified accused Hadma before the Court. He further deposed that constable Kiran Kumar received injury on his body by Tangiya. 6. Injured constable Kiran Kumar (PW-7) deposed before the Court that Hadma assaulted him by Tangiya then and also torned his uniform. He saved himself with the rifle and in this attack the wood of rifle was cracked. He further deposed that Hidma again tried to attack on him with Tangiya then he fired on air, as a result of which the mob was dispersed and his uniform was torned. Injured constable Khileshwar (PW-8) has corroborated the statement of PW-7 and PW-5. He was admitted in the PHC Awapalli for treatment vide Ex.P-5 wherein treating doctor (Ex.P-6) noticed single abrasion on the forearm in the size of 1 ½ inch at left parietal blow on the thigh in the size of ½ inch. He opined that the injury received by the injured is simple in nature. Injured Forest Guard Gudar Kashyap (PW-11) was also admitted in the hospital for treatment wherein Dr. (PW-6) noticed that (i) Abrasion found at left elbow in the size of 1 cm x ½ cm, (II) Lacerated wound was found below the lip part and (III) Abrasion on the left knee. He opined that the injuries received by the injured Gudar Kashyap are simple in nature which were caused by hard and blunt object. 5 7. Appellants Bhima was admitted in the PHC for treatment wherein doctor noticed swelling on chin and opined that the injury received by the injured Bhima is simple in nature which was caused by hard and blunt object. 8. Dr. Sanjay Rana (PW-6) deposed before the Court that he has examined the injured on 05.03.1996 vide Ex.P-5, Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7, Ex.P-8, Ex.P-9 and opined that the injuries caused on the injured are simple in nature which were caused by hard and blunt object. 9. Learned trial court appreciating the eivdence and on the opinion of the Doctor has given its finding that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature and the appellants interfered in the official functioning of the injured persons who are government servants, therefore, trial Court has sentenced for six months for commission of offence under Section 353 r/w 149 and 323 r/w 149 IPC. Learned trial court has acquitted the appellants from the charges levelled against them for commission of offence under Section 307/149 IPC as the prosecution was unable to establish the intention of appellant Hadma to kill constable Kiran Kumar. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred the appeal before this Court. This Court vide order dated 17.09.2002 has granted suspension of sentence to the appellants. During pendency of the appeal before this Court, appellant No.1 Gatpalli Laxamiya, Appellant No.2 Ramu Soni, Appellant No. 4 Ishu, Appellant No.5 Suresh Chand Dubey and Appellant No. 8 Gatpalli Damariya died, therefore, the appeal to the extent of that appellants stands abated. 6 10. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there are omissions and contradictions in the statements recorded which create doubt over the prosecution story and would pray for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Alternatively he has submitted that the incident took place in the year 1995 and more than 30 years have already been lapsed. The appellants are regularly appearing before the trial Court after releasing on bail by this court and no other incident of this nature has ever been committed by them and they have not misused the liberty granted to them. It has also been contended that the appellants are remained in jail from 19.06.1996 to 03.09.1996, therefore, their jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and argued that the appellants armed with weapon constituted unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, they assaulted the government officials while they were discharging their duties, therefore, he prays for dismissal of appeal. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the statements recorded before the trial Court, particularly statements of injured persons as well as treating doctor who has supported his report vide vide Ex.P-5, Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7, Ex.P-8, Ex.P-9. This Court has to examine whether offence under Section 353 r/w 149 and 323 r/w 149 IPC is made out not. 7 14. To appreciate this submission, it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 353 and 323 IPC which read as under:- Section "353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." Section 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.— Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 15. From Perusal of the FIR (Ex.P-17) which is genesis of the prosecution case reveals that the accused along with the villagers have caught hold the Police personnel and caused injuries on their bodies and torned the uniform of constable Kiran Kumar (PW-7) and other accused gave Tangiya blow to PW-7 and caused abrasion found at left elbow in the size of 1 cm x ½ cm, lacerated wound was found below the lip part and abrasion on the left knee to Gudar Kashyap Forest Guard, who was also on Government Duty at Nursery. On the basis of complaint made by Gudar Kashyap Forest Guard, the police registered the Crime No. 9 of 96 and during investigation, another incident occurred due to which Crime No. 325 of 96 was also registered against the appellants out of which learned trial court has acquitted the appellants under Crime No. 9 of 96 and convicted them in Crime No. 325 of 96. Considering the fact that the prosecution has successfully demonstrated that the accused/appellants have assaulted the 8 complainant with stick, tangiya on their vital part which resulted in bleeding. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the well recorded finding of conviction by the learned trial Court. Consequently, findings of conviction of appellants recorded by learned trial Court for commission of offence under Sections 353 r/w 149 IPC and 323 r/w 149 IPC are hereby confirmed. 16. Now this Court is examining the alternate submission made by counsel for the appellants that since the appellants already remained in jail for about 2 months and 14 days days, therefore, the sentence may kindly be reduced to the period already undergone by them, is being considered. 17. To consider this alternate prayer this Court has to take into consideration the mitigating factors which are available for considering the submission that the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone is available on record or not. The mitigating factor is always subject matter of examination by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the mitigating factors may include the age of the accused, absence of prior criminal record, mental or physical health conditions, socio- economic background, duration of trial, and good conduct during incarceration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Giasuddin vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3SCC 287 inter alia held as under: 9.... It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti- social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and the goal is salvaging him for 9 society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defence. We therefore, consider a therapeutic, rather than an "in terrorem" outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. 16. … ‘ A proper sentence is the amalgam of many factors such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances extenuating or aggravating of the offence, the prior criminal record, if any, of the offender, the age of the offender, the record of the offender as to employment, the background of the offender with reference to education, home life, sobriety and social adjustment, the emotional and mental conditions of the offender, the prospects for the rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of return of the offender to normal life in the community, the possibility of treatment or training of the offender, the possibility that the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender or by others and the current community need, if any, for such a deterrent in respect to the particular type of offence. These factors have to be taken into account by the Court in deciding upon the appropriate sentence. [As observed in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 190. It will thus be seen that there is a great discretion vested in the Judge, especially when pluralistic factors enter his calculations. Innovation, in all conscience, is in the field of judicial discretion." (Emphasis supplied) 18. Similarly, in Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1104, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying on the judgment of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) reiterated the importance of considering mitigating factors while awarding sentence, particularly in cases involving long-pending prosecutions. The Court observed that the incident in question therein had occurred nearly four decades ago and that the appellant had no prior criminal record. Therefore, the sentence of the appellant therein was reduced from 5 years to 3 years considering the mitigating circumstances. The operative portion reads as under:- 10 "10. It is a well-established principle that while imposing sentence, aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a case are to be taken into consideration. … Similarly, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC (two-Judge Bench), while considering the settlement between the parties concerning an offence under Section 307IPC, observed: 13.1. The goal of sentencing can be a combination of incapacitation, specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation, or restoration. 13.2. In India we do not have any such sentencing policy till date. The prevalence of such guidelines may not only aim at achieving consistency in awarding sentences in different cases, such guidelines normally prescribe the sentencing policy as well, namely, whether the purpose of awarding punishment in a particular case is more of a deterrence or retribution or ehabilitation, etc. In the absence of such guidelines in India, the courts go by their own perception about the philosophy behind the prescription of certain specified penal consequences for particular nature of crime. 13.3. For some deterrence and/or vengeance becomes more important whereas another Judge may be more influenced by rehabilitation or restoration as the goal of sentencing. Sometimes, it would be a combination of both which would weigh in the mind of the court in awarding a particular sentence. However, that may be a question of quantum. 16. More recently, in Jasbir Singh v. Tara Singh [Jasbir Singh v. Tara Singh, (2016) 16 SCC 441: (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 514] (two- Judge Bench), this Court observed that it is not possible to have strict principles on sentencing in absence of a sentencing policy for the State, however certain mitigating factors like the gravity of the offence, motive for commission of the crime, the manner in which it was committed need to be borne in mind and thereafter sentence be imposed. 20. 20. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties and findings of the courts below, it can be seen that 39 years have passed since the date of offence and both the other accused persons have come to be acquitted. From a reading of the impugned order [Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 7212), it is a matter of record that there was old enmity between the complainant and A-1 relating to the piece of land where the offence came to be committed, while pertinently, the appellant (A-2) is the nephew of A-1. 21. There are no criminal antecedents of the appellant that have been brought on record. Further, from the record, it cannot be said that the appellant acted in a premeditated manner, whatsoever. 11 22. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in consideration of the abovementioned mitigating factors, this Court reduces the sentence imposed on the appellant-accused from 5 years rigorous imprisonment to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant shall pay a fine amount of Rs 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) within a period of 6 weeks from today. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The fine to be paid to the complainant by way of compensation." (Emphasis supplied). 19. Now in light of the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court this Court is examing the issue of quantum of sentence, it is undisputed that incident had taken place 30 years ago. Therefore, having taken into consideration the lapse of a period of 30 years and other mitigating factors that the appellants were not misued the liberty granted by this Court and they remained in jail about 2 months and 15 days and also that the prosecution has not placed any criminal antecedents other than this case. 20. Considering the above stated factual matrix and law on the subject, it does not appear just and proper to uphold the sentence of 6 months R.I under Section 353 r/w 149 and fine amount of Rs. 50/- under Section 323 r/w 149 IPC as awarded by the trial Court. Therefore, jail sentence of 6 months R.I. for offences under Section 353 r/w 149 IPC awarded by learned trial Court requires interference. Hence, appeal is allowed on the point of sentence and their jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them by enhancing the fine amount to the tune of Rs. 2000/- each of the appellants instead of Rs. 100/- for offence under Section 353 r/w 149 IPC. So far as offence under Section 323 r/w 149 IPC is concerned, fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 1000/- each of the appellants instead of Rs. 50/-. The Appellants are directed to deposit enhanced fine amount of total Rs. 3000/- 12 each for both the offences before the trial Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. In case, appellants fail to deposit the enhanced fine amount within the said period they shall undergo sentence awarded by the trial Court in its judgment under challenge. The enhanced fine amount will be paid to the injured/ victim so deposited by the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal allowed in part. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh