1 2025:CGHC:17563 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 338 of 2016 1. Budharu Nirmalkar S/o Shri Santu Nirmalkar Aged About 20 Years R/o Joginagar Durg, Thana Durg, Civil And Rev. Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh. 2. Bhupendra @ Chhotu S/o Shri Pancham Das Manikpuri Aged About 23 Years R/o Joginagar Durg, Thana Durg, Civil And Rev. Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh. 3. Panchram Yadav S/o Shri Jageshwar Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Joginagar Durg, Thana Durg, Civil And Rev. Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, PL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 16.04.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.01.2016, passed in Session Trial No.99/2013 by which the 2 learned Session Judge, Durg, (CG), convicted and sentenced the appellants as under : Conviction Sentence Under Section 436 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years & fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 year additional Simple imprisonment, (each appellants) Under Section 450 of the IPC. RI for 10 years & fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 year additional SI, (each appellants) Under Section 323/34 of the IPC. RI for 01 year & fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months additional SI, (each appellants) All the sentence run concurrently 2. This appeal was filed on 03.03.2016 and appellants were granted bail by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2016. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on 22/05/2012, the appellants were throwing the stones at the dog sitting in front of the house of the complainant (Smt. Reshma). When the complaint ask to stop throwing the stone, they stopped and went from there. After some time, appellants came back with Axe (tangia), sickle (hasiya) and petrol in a plastic bottle, they pushed the door of the complainant's house, entered into the house and started abusing and assaulting the complainant, when one Deepa Sonwani tried to intervene, she was also assaulted by the 3 appellants. Appellants poured the petrol on the roof of the complainant’s house and set it on fire and threatened that if she reports the incident, they will kill her. Based upon report lodged by complainant, FIR was registered against the appellants/accused and they have been arrested. 4. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed against the appellant and based upon which trial Court framed the charges against him. 5. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 15 witnesses. Statement of appellants (accused) were also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all incriminating evidence appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by him in their defence. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. He submits that incident had taken place on 23.05.2012, there was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, it was first offence of 4 appellants and thereafter they had not indulged themselves in any other criminal activity, at the time of incident appellants were aged about 20-23 years, no purpose would be served by again sending the appellants in jail after a lapse of about 12 years. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e, more than one year. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that looking to the nature of offence, leniency should not be shown to appellants. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 10. Though learned counsel for appellant has not challenged conviction of appellants and restricted his prayer only with regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment and evidence on record. 11. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after elaborately considering evidence of each individual material witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellants herein and that being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that appellants are guilty for offence punishable under Sections 436, 450, 323/34 of IPC. 5 12. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the fact that incident took place in the year 2012 i.e. 12 years have elapsed, age of appellants at the time of incident was 20-23 years, they have already served about one year of jail sentence, there was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, it was first offence of appellants and thereafter they had not indulged themselves in any other criminal activity, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending appellants to jail at this point of time for undergoing remaining period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellants under Sections 436, 450, 323/34 of IPC is hereby affirmed. Sentences imposed upon appellants under aforementioned Sections are hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them. 14. Appellants are reported to be on bail, hence, their bail bonds stand cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged. 15. Record of case be sent back forthwith with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-