1 2025:CGHC:52494 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 498 of 2016 1 - Mohan Lohar S/o Ramdas @ Juhu Lohar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Jargeem, P.S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramdas @ Juhu Lohar S/o Dagaram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Jargeem, P.S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Jagat Ram S/o Ramdas Lohar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Jargeem, P.S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. , District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh Appellant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. Civil And Rev. Distt. Sarguja Ambikapur. , Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Seema Verma, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Uttara Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. AG Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 28/10/2025 1. In the present case, a total of six persons were arrayed as accused, RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.11.04 16:49:47 +0530 2 including the appellants herein. During the course of the trial, accused Badaik Lohar passed away. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that accused Phoolsai and Santram have not preferred any appeal against their conviction. The instant appeal has thus been filed only by the appellants named above. 2. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29/03/2016 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.67/2010 by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Surguja (C.G.) whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 147 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment of one month and fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation. U/s 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Facts of the case: 3. Complainant, Ku. Manita Paikra (PW4) (henceforth ‘the Complainant’), had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of her elder sister, Bati Paikra, at Jargim. On the date of the incident, i.e., 20.06.2010, at about 8:00 PM, while the complainant along with her friends Sanjeev and Sangeeta was going to fetch water from a borewell, accused Mohan Lohar and Laila @ 3 Jitendra met her on the way and caught hold of her hand with an intent to outrage her modesty. When the complainant raised an alarm, one Mahkul from the same village reached the spot, upon which the accused fled from there. Shortly thereafter, accused persons namely Mohan Lohar, Ramdas @ Juhu, Phoolsai Lohar, Jagat Lohar, Santram, and Badaik Lohar came armed with weapons such as spear, rod, and sticks towards the house of Mahkul Kanwar (PW1) and assaulted the inmates. It is alleged that accused Mohan Lohar hit Manmait, daughter of Mahkul, with a brick on her chest; Santram assaulted Jeetu, Badaik assaulted Phoolsai, and Ramdas beat them with fists and kicks. Accused Jagat Ram hit Dinesh near his eye, and accused Jagat Ram, Mohan, and Ramdas assaulted Pehnta Ram with a spear. Accused Phoolsai also struck Ghanaram on his head and forehead with a spear. They further abused the victims in filthy and caste-related language and threatened to kill them. Consequently, on 20.06.2010, the complainant (PW4) lodged a First Information Report (Ex. P-5) at Police Station Shankargarh. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, a spot map (Ex. P- 1) was prepared, and the caste certificates of the complainant and the victim were seized vide seizure memos (Ex. P-2 and P-14). The accused persons were arrested, and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent court. Subsequently, the charges were framed. The same were read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and false implication, and 4 no witness was examined in defence. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses, including injured witnesses and produced several documentary exhibits such as FIR (Ex. P-5), spot map (Ex. P-1), caste certificates, seizure memos, medical reports of the injured, and arrest memos of the accused persons (Exs. P-15 to P-27). 5. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph two of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. Submission of the parties: 6. Ms. Seema Verma, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case and that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. She would submits that even the essential ingredients of Sections 147 & 323/149 of the IPC have not been proved against the appellants. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is not sustainable. In the alternative, she submits that the appellants have no criminal antecedents and have remained on bail without misuse of liberty granted by this Court. Hence, they may be extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. 7. Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, learned Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submit 5 that the conviction of the appellants is well founded and does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove, and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. To substantiate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to carefully examine the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 10. Complainant- Ku. Manita Paikra (PW4) stated that on the date of incident she had gone to village Jargim to attend the marriage ceremony of the daughter of her elder sister’s brother-in-law. Around 7:00 to 7:30 PM, when the wedding rituals (Dwar Pooja) were being performed, there was a large crowd, and she was also standing there. At that time, accused Mohan and Laila asked her to give water for them. She refused, saying that it was crowded and she could not do so, and thereafter, she went inside the house and did not come out again. She categorically stated that the accused did not commit any incident or offence against her. The witness stated that she had lodged the report on the following day. She initially did not wish to lodge any complaint, but the villagers insisted, and therefore, she went and lodged the report. In her complaint, she mentioned only that she had gone to attend a wedding ceremony and that the accused persons had asked her to give water. When questioned, she stated that she did not know Pehnta, Ku. Manmait, Dinesh, Ghana, Smt. Sadhni, or Jeetu Paikra, nor did she have any knowledge whether the 6 accused persons had committed any incident with them. At this stage, as the witness resiled from her earlier statement, she was declared hostile on the request of the learned Special Public Prosecutor, and permission was granted to put leading questions. Upon being cross-examined by the prosecution, the witness denied the suggestion that on the night of the incident, around 8:00 PM, while she was going to fetch water along with her friends Sanjeev and Sangeeta, accused Mohan and Laila met them on the way and caught hold of her hand with an intent to outrage her modesty. She further denied that she raised an alarm and that Mahkul, a villager, came there, upon which the accused ran away. 11. PW-1 Mahkul Kanwar stated that he knew the complainant Ku. Manita Paikra and the accused persons. He deposed that on the night of the incident, around 8:00 PM, while the marriage ceremony was going on at his house, he heard the cries of Manita and went towards the direction of the sound. There he saw accused Mohan Lohar and Laila @ Jitendra, who fled on seeing him. He further stated that a short while later, accused Mohan, Ramdas @ Juhu, Jagat Lohar, Phoolsai, Santram, and Badaik came towards his house armed with lathi, rod, and barchhi (spear) and started assaulting the members of his family. Accused Mohan hit his daughter Manmait on the chest with a brick, due to which she fell down. Accused Jagat struck Dinesh near his eye, while accused Ramdas and others assaulted Pehnta and Ghanaram with rods and spears. The accused also hurled caste-based abuses and threatened to kill them. He 7 stated that due to the assault, several family members sustained injuries. Thereafter, he went to the police station and lodged the report. In cross-examination, he denied the defence suggestion that no such incident took place or that the accused persons were falsely implicated. He maintained that the accused persons had indeed come armed and assaulted his family members. Thus, PW-1 Mahkul Kanwar supported the prosecution case and corroborated the version of assault and caste-related abuses committed by the accused persons. 12. PW-2 Ghanaram Kanwar stated that he knows all the accused except Jitendra. Except Jitendra, all are Lohar by caste, and accused Baraik Lohar, who has since died, also belonged to the same caste. He himself is of Kanwar tribe. He knew Mahkul, Manita, and Manmeit. About three years ago, during a marriage at Mukhan’s house, around 7 p.m., when he was returning home, he heard a woman shouting near Mahkul’s house and saw a fight on the road between the accused persons and Jitu and Dinesh. Accused Mohan, Jagat, and Ramdas were beating Jitu and Dinesh with sticks. When he tried to intervene, accused Fulsai and Satram struck him with an iron spear, causing head injuries and bleeding. There was no exchange of abuses in his presence. After the fight, he, along with Jitu, Dinesh, Lebi (Prabhu’s daughter), and Beeteen (Mahkul’s daughter), was taken to Shankargarh hospital and then to the police station for medical examination. Jitu and Lebi had head injuries and Beeteen had chest injuries. In cross-examination, he stated that the injury had occurred before 8 his arrival and that he knew the injured woman was Suresh Kanwar’s wife. He admitted reaching the spot when the quarrel was already underway and did not see who hit whom. He admitted that Mohan, Jagat, Ramdas, and Baraik were also injured, but denied that Baraik died due to those injuries, stating he was already ill. He confirmed that a case was pending against Mahkul and Dinesh on Mohan’s report. He stated he had consumed some liquor offered at the marriage house. He denied that his injuries were due to falling while separating the fight or that accused Satram and Fulsai did not assault anyone. He clarified that both were initially near their house but later came to the spot. 13. PW-3 Adhanu, aged about 36 years, resident of Village Jargim, P.S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur, stated that he knows all the accused persons, including the deceased accused Baraik. He also knows Mahkul, Manmait, Sadhni, Pehta, Ghanaram, Dinesh, and Jeetu of his village. The incident occurred about 3–4 years ago during the marriage ceremony at the house of Mukhan Kanwar. While going to see the marriage at night, he met accused Mohan, Jagat, and Jagat’s wife, when Mohan informed him that there had been a fight with Mahkul. Near Baraik’s house, he saw his father Pehta sitting outside; accused Mohan caught hold of and pushed him, causing him to fall on his face and sustain a mouth injury. He then took his father home. He stated that later the accused went to Mahkul’s house and had a fight, but he was not present there and did not know with whom they quarreled. He identified his photograph on his police statement (Ex. P/4 and P/4-C). On being declared hostile, he denied that Jagat, Ramdas, and Baraik also assaulted 9 his father or that Fulsai, Ramdas, or Jagat had attacked others as alleged. He denied giving such statements to the police or concealing facts to protect the accused. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not go to Mahkul’s house during the incident and did not know whether anyone assaulted his father there. He denied that his father’s injuries were due to falling from Fulsai’s roof or that Mohan had not pushed him. He also stated there was no prior quarrel between his father and Mohan. He admitted that during village marriages, all villagers visit the wedding house. 14. PW-5 Manmait Paikra, resident of Village Jargim, P.S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur, stated that at the time of the incident she was unmarried and now lives with her husband in Village Belkona. She knows all the accused persons, as they belong to her parental village, and stated that they are of Agaria caste, while she belongs to the Paikra (Kanwar) tribe. The incident took place about four years ago, around 8 p.m., when she was in the courtyard of her house. Accused Mohan Lohar came there and hit her on the chest with a brick, causing her to fall unconscious. She regained consciousness the same night at Shankargarh hospital, where her family had taken her. She did not know who else accompanied Mohan as she became unconscious soon after. The police had conducted her medical examination. She stated that there was a marriage at Batti Paikra’s house in the village on that day, though she had not gone there. She admitted that her father had arrived home before the assault and denied that other accused persons had come with Mohan. 10 She denied having told the police that others, including Ramdas, had assaulted Manita Paikra or that the accused had returned to the spot later, stating she never gave such a statement. In cross-examination, she admitted that it was a dark night and that she came out of her house on hearing noise from outside. While standing near the wall, a brick struck her chest, after which she lost consciousness. She volunteered that it was accused Mohan who threw the brick. She stated she did not know whether any case was pending against her father on the report of Mohan but admitted that her father attends court at Ambikapur. She denied giving a false statement out of enmity. On being questioned by the Court, she admitted that the police had interrogated her. 15. PW6, Sadhni Kanwar, stated that she is engaged in agriculture and resides at village Jarnim, Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur (C.G.). She deposed that the accused persons present in Court, as well as the absconding accused Laila and the deceased accused Baraik, are residents of her village, and therefore she knows them all. She further stated that accused Laila belongs to the Bhuihar caste, the other accused persons belong to the Lohar caste, and she herself belongs to the Kadar caste. She stated that she does not remember the exact date of the incident. On the day of occurrence, in the evening, she was standing outside the house of Satraram when she heard the cries of Manmait. On hearing the commotion, she went to Manmait’s house and asked her what had happened. Manmait told her that accused Mohan had assaulted 11 her and hit her on the chest with a brick. At that time, Manmait, the witness herself, Dinesh, and accused Mohan were present there. When she questioned Mohan as to why he had beaten Manmait, he remained silent. At that time, the other accused persons — Juhu, Phulsay, Jagat, and Santram were also present there along with Mohan. She further stated that accused Mohan had thrown Dinesh near Manmait’s house, and accused Juhu tried to attack Dinesh with a spear, but she stopped him. When she was taking Dinesh away from the spot, accused Juhu struck her with the spear, causing injury on her forehead. Thereafter, she left the place. She further stated that on the same night, she, along with Manmait, Mahkul, Dinesh, Penhta, and Ghana, went to Police Station Shankargarh. Except for Mahkul, all of them had sustained injuries. The police got their medical examination done. During cross-examination, she admitted that on the day of the incident, there was a marriage ceremony of Bhukhan’s daughter in their village, and the wedding procession had arrived, in which all the villagers had participated. She stated that she did not know whether the quarrel had started because Mahkul had slapped accused Mohan two or three times or for some other reason. She admitted that in the fight, on one side were the accused persons, and on the other side were Mahkul, Aghnu, Ghana, Dinesh, Jeetu, and Penhta. She also admitted that she had gone to the spot in an attempt to intervene and separate the parties. 16. PW8, Shashikala Toppo stated that he has been posted as a Medical Officer at Community Health Centre (CHC), Shankargarh since the year 12 2006. He deposed that on 21.06.2010, Constable Dev Kumar No.234 of Police Station Shankargarh brought several injured persons before him for medical examination in connection with the incident. He stated that on 21.06.2010, injured Jeetu, son of Aklu, aged about 20 years, resident of village Jarnim, was examined by him. He was identified by a black mole on the upper part of his left chest. On examination, he found a lacerated wound on the right parietal part of the head, measuring 7 cm × 0.5 cm × 1.2 cm, caused by a hard and blunt object. The injured complained of headache and giddiness. The duration of injury was between 8 to 12 hours and it was simple in nature. He advised the injured for CT scan at District Hospital Ambikapur. His report is Ex. P- 18. This witness further stated that on the same day at about 1:10 p.m., injured Sadhni, wife of Suresh, aged 24 years, resident of village Jarnim, was brought before him. She was identified by black moles on her right shoulder and middle of the chest. On examination, he found a lacerated wound over the right shoulder measuring 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, caused by a hard and blunt object. The duration of injury was 8– 12 hours and the injury was simple in nature. His report is Ex. P-12A bearing his signatures. He also stated that at 1:15 p.m. on the same day, he examined Dhana Ram, son of Nadi Ram, aged 35 years, resident of village Jarnim, identified by black moles on the left side of the neck and on the upper part of the back. On examination, he found (1) a lacerated wound on the 13 top of the head measuring 5 cm × 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm, and (2) a lacerated wound on the forehead measuring 4 cm × 0.5 cm × 1 cm. Both the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object. Their duration was 8–12 hours and both were simple in nature. His report is Ex. P-11A, bearing his signatures. At 1:35 p.m., he examined Dinesh, son of Bahadur, aged 29 years, resident of village Jarnim, who was identified by black moles on his left chest and right back. On examination, he found a lacerated wound near the left eye measuring 0.5 cm × 0.2 cm × 0.5 cm, caused by a hard and blunt object. The injury was simple in nature, with a duration of 8–12 hours. His report is Ex. P-10A, bearing his signatures. He further stated that at 1:30 p.m., he examined Penhta, son of Dhela, aged 55 years, resident of village Jarnim, identified by two black moles on the left scapular region. On examination, he found the following injuries: (1) a lacerated wound on the inner side of the lower lip measuring 1.5 cm × 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm; (2) another lacerated wound on the right side of the lower lip measuring 1.5 cm × 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm; and (3) a reddish abrasion on the left knee measuring 2.5 cm × 2.5 cm. All the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object, simple in nature, and of duration 8–12 hours. His report is Ex. P-4A, bearing his signatures. He also stated that at 1:45 p.m., he examined Kumari Manmait, daughter of Mahkul, aged 16 years, resident of village Jarnim, who was identified by black moles on the upper part of her abdomen and on the upper part of the right cheek. On examination, she complained of pain 14 on the right side of her chest; however, no redness or visible injury was found. His report is Ex. P-1A, bearing his signatures. In cross-examination, the witness stated that on 21.06.2010, he had examined a total of six injured persons. He admitted that he prepared the reports on the basis of the requisition letters received from the police and after perusing the brief injury details, but he also personally examined each injured and made inquiries. He denied the suggestion that he had prepared all the reports at one place merely on the basis of police information or under police pressure. He affirmed that all the injuries found were simple in nature and superficial, and though scratches can be self-inflicted, lacerated wounds cannot be caused by oneself. He further stated that he had measured the depth of the wounds and that if a sharp- edged object is used with sufficient force, it can even reach the bone depending on the intensity of the blow. He opined that such injuries could be caused in a mutual fight where both sides used sticks or blunt objects. In cross-examination, the witness stated that none of the injuries were grievous in nature and that such injuries could also occur if a person accidentally collided with a hard surface or stone while running. 17. From the statements of prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-1 Mahkul Kanwar, PW-5 Manmait Paikra, PW-6 Sadhni Kanwar, and the medical evidence of PW-8 Dr. Shashikala Toppo, it stands established that the accused persons, namely Mohan Lohar, Ramdas @ Juhu, Phoolsai Lohar, Jagat Lohar, and Santram, forming an unlawful assembly, 15 assaulted the family members of Mahkul Kanwar on the night of the incident. The evidence of PW-1 Mahkul clearly shows that all the accused came armed with lathi, rod, and spear and voluntarily caused injuries to several members of his family. His testimony finds material corroboration from the injured witnesses and medical reports. 18. Although PW-4, the complainant Manita Paikra, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case in its entirety, the testimony of other prosecution witnesses inspires confidence and sufficiently proves the occurrence of the assault. The hostility of one witness, by itself, does not demolish the prosecution case when it is otherwise supported by consistent, credible, and corroborative testimony of other witnesses. 19. PW-5 Manmait Paikra has deposed that accused Mohan hit her on the chest with a brick, as a result of which she fell unconscious. Her version is supported by PW-6 Sadhni Kanwar, who not only witnessed the aftermath but also herself sustained an injury when she intervened in the quarrel. The medical reports (Exs. P-1A, P-10A, P-11A, and P-12A) prepared by PW-8 Dr. Shashikala Toppo corroborate the ocular evidence by confirming that all the injuries found on the victims were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt objects within the relevant time frame. 20. The minor contradictions or omissions pointed out by the defence are of a trivial nature and do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The defence suggestion that the accused were falsely implicated or that there was a counter case against the complainant’s side has not been substantiated by any reliable evidence. The consistent and cogent 16 testimony of injured witnesses, duly supported by medical corroboration, firmly establishes that the accused persons, in prosecution of their common object, voluntarily caused simple injuries to the victims. 21. The nature of the injuries, as proved by medical evidence, being simple and caused by blunt weapons, rules out the applicability of any higher offence such as Sections 324 or 325 IPC. The evidence, however, clearly satisfies the essential ingredients of Sections 147 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is thus proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons, being members of an unlawful assembly, committed rioting and voluntarily caused simple hurt to the complainant’s side. 22. As regards the question of sentence, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the occurrence took place, the fact that the incident dates back to the year 2009, and that the appellants have no prior criminal antecedents and have already remained in custody for about three days, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants have remained on bail and there is nothing on record to suggest that they have misused the liberty granted to them. The injuries sustained by the complainant and his son being simple in nature further justify a lenient approach. 23. In light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet [(2009) 13 SCC 478], where leniency was 17 shown considering the long passage of time and payment of fine to the victim, a similar view deserves to be taken in the present case. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Sections 147 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned Trial Court is modified to the period already undergone. However, the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court is enhanced to ₹5,000/- each under Section 147 IPC and ₹5,000/- each under Section 323/149 IPC, making a total of ₹10,000/- per appellant. The total fine amount for the present three appellants shall thus come to ₹30,000/- (₹10,000 × 3), after adjusting any sum already deposited. The fine shall be deposited before the Trial Court within one month, failing which the appellants shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The fine amount of ₹30,000/- shall be paid to all the injured equally as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 24. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the appeal partly allowed. 25. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 26. 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/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri