1 2025:CGHC:20739 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 143 of 2007 1 – Yashwant, S/o. Shyamlal, Aged About 32 Years 2 – Kumbhaj, S/o. Shyamlal, Aged About 26 Years Both are Cultivator and resident of Village Sasaha Police Station Palari, District - Raipur (C.G.) Now In District - Balodabazar (C.G.) --- Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, through : the (Police Station Palari, District Raipur), Collector, Raipur (C.G.) -----Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Ram Sajiwan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 06/05/2025 1. Pursuant to the bailable warrant issued by this Court vide order dated 11.04.2025, the appellants are present before this Court today. Their presence are marked. 2. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. Appellants have filed this criminal appeal U/s.374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.01.2017, passed in S.T. No.138/2006, whereby the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under with a direction to run all the sentence concurrently :- 2 For both the appellants U/s. 436 of I.P.C : 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 2 months more U/s. 451 of I.P.C : 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 20 days more U/s. 427 of I.P.C : Fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, S.I. for one month In addition to the above, for appellant No.1 U/s. 323 of I.P.C : Fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine, S.I. for one month U/s. 294 of I.P.C : Fine of Rs.150/-, in default of payment of fine, S.I. for 15 days. 4. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on the date of incident i.e. on 3rd May 2005, the complainant, Lekhram, returned to his village, Sasaha, from Maharashtra with his wife. Upon arriving at his house, he found the accused, Yashwant Kumbhaj, and others making illicit liquor in one of the room. When the complainant's wife objected, the accused, Yashwant, abused her. The complainant also protested, leading to abuse and assault by Yashwant to the complainant. The complainant went to inform the villagers and seek help, but upon returning, he found that the accused/appellants had set his house on fire, destroying all his belongings. The matter was thereafter reported to the concerned police station based upon which Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) was recorded and thereafter FIR (Ex.P-9) was registered. During investigation, spot map was prepared, statement of the witnesses were recorded and accused persons were arrested. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the 3 appellants for commission of offence under Section 452, 436, 294, 506B, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Appellants were charged with Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 451, 323, 427, 436, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants denied the charges and prayed for trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in its behalf. Statement of appellants were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied all incriminating evidence appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. Two witnesses were examined by the appellants in defence. 6. After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court, upon appreciation of documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence, this present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the appellants and the complainant are close relatives and belongs to the same family and the house which is said to have set on fire is under their joint possession and ownership being ancestral property. It is submitted that due to some dispute arose between the complainant and the appellants, the false and fabricated report has been lodged in order to implicate the appellants in false case. It is further submitted that the complainant, along with his family, had been working as laborers and residing in Maharashtra. They did not live in the house that was allegedly set on fire but had come to the house suddenly, as it is a joint family house. It is contended that the learned trial Court also erred in 4 convicting the appellants under Section 451 of I.P.C. It is submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned trial Court convicted the appellants and therefore, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set-aside. 8. In alternate, learned counsel for the appellants submits that if the Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the conviction of appellants is just and proper, then considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2005, age of appellants were at that time 32 and 26 years and they have remained in jail for a period of 24 days. They have no criminal antecedents, they did not misuse the liberty granted to them during trial and appeal, and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, the sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already undergone. 9. Counsel for the State opposes the grounds raised in appeal and the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, no case is made out for acquittal or for reduction of the sentences. Hence, the appeal be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records of the Courts below. 11. Perusal of the record reveals that, based on a complaint made by Lekhram (P.W.-1), a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) was initially recorded, which subsequently led to the lodging of FIR (Ex.P-9) against the 5 appellants and another co-accused, Shatruhan. According to the allegations, on the date of the incident, when the complainant came back to the house, a dispute arose between the appellants and the complainant regarding occupation of one room of the house. The argument got heated, resulting in the appellants allegedly abusing and assaulting the complainant, and further, setting his house on fire. 12. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined the complainant Lekhram (P.W.-1), who stated in his evidence that when he came to his village Sahsa to celebrate Diwali in 2005. Upon arrival, he saw accused Yashwant, Kumbhaj, and Shatrughan making liquor in one of the rooms of his house. When his wife questioned their actions, the accused persons abused her. When he tried to intervene, the accused also abused him and his mother, and appellant No. 1 assaulted him with a stick. The witness then went to inform the Sarpanch and Kotwar about the incident, leaving his mother, wife, and daughter at the scene. Upon returning with the villagers, he found that the accused had set his house on fire. His daughter and mother told him that the accused not only set the house on fire but also destroyed and damaged the belongings of the complainant. He stated that he reported the matter to the police station and police lodged his report (Ex.P-1). The police got him medically examined. He suffered a property loss of Rs. 20,000. The police assessed the damages, prepared a panchnama, and seized damaged utensils from his house vide Ex.P-3. In cross- examination, he denied the all the adverse suggestion given in defence and remained firm on the statement made in his examination in chief. 6 13. The statement of complainant (P.W.-1) was corroborated by his mother, Smt. Ghurbabai (P.W.-2), his wife, Smt. Kaushilya Bai (P.W.- 3), and his daughter, Dulari Bai (P.W.-4). They all testified regarding the incident, including the abuse and assault committed by the appellants against the complainant and his wife. Dulari Bai (P.W.-4) has also stated that appellants set her house on fire. 14. Smt. Guruba Bai (P.W.-2) in her statement stated that when her son Lekhram returned back to his home, during Diwali festival, the appellants under the influence of liquor abused her daughter in law and also abused and assaulted his son Lekhram. She also stated that the appellants set her house on fire and they run away when the house caught fire. She stated that her grand daughter Sakeswari was sleeping in the house they pulled her out and ran away from there. She also stated that appellant- Yashwant assaulted her son Lekhram due to which he sustained injuries in his hand. She stated that the appellants damaged the utensils of their house and also extended threat to kill them. Similar is the statement of Smt. Kaushilya Bai (P.W.- 3) and Dulari Bai (P.W.-4). 15. Kamlesh Sahu (P.W.-5) stated in his evidence that the complainant came to him along with the Kotwar during the Diwali festival. The complainant (P.W.-1) informed him that his house had been set on fire. Anjor Das, the Kotwar, who was examined as (P.W.-6), stated that the complainant Lekhram came to him and told him that the appellants were making liquor in his house, and later, he was informed about the fire incident in the house of complainant. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. 7 16. Bhuwan Lal Soni (P.W.-7) stated that during the Diwali festival, at around 8 PM, Lekhram came to his house and informed him that his house had been set on fire and that he was gathering village elders (panchas). Accordingly, he proceeded to Jawahar Chowk, Sahasa. He further deposed that, in his presence, the police seized utensils and other items vide seizure memo (Ex.P-3), prepared a Panchnama (Ex.P-2), and obtained his signature on the same. 17. Dr. Firatram Nirala (P.W.-8) stated in his evidence that on 01.11.2005, he medically examined the complainant, Lekhram, and found a single abrasion measuring 1 cm on the outer side of his right elbow. He opined that the injury was simple in nature and had been caused by a hard and blunt object. The medical report has been marked as Ex.P-7. 18. A.S.I. Ashraf Khan, the Investigating Officer, was examined as P.W.-9. He stated that upon receiving telephonic information, he recorded the incident in the Rojnamcha Sanha and, based on the complainant's statement, registered the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1), following which the FIR (Ex.P-9) was lodged. The complainant, Lekhram, was sent for medical examination. He prepared the spot panchnama (Ex.P-2) and seized damaged utensils vide Ex.P-3. Liquor-making materials were also seized from appellant Yashwant vide Ex.P-4. He further prepared the spot map (Ex.P-10), recorded the statements of witnesses, and arrested the appellants, with the arrest memos marked as Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-13. 19. From the aforementioned discussion of evidence on record it is clear that on the date and time of incident complainant Lekhram (P.W.-1) and his wife was abused and assaulted by the appellants when the 8 complainant and his wife were objected the acts of the appellants of making liquor in the house of complainant and thereafter, they set the house of complainant on fire. Statement of the complainant (P.W.-1) was supported by the evidence of Ghurwabai (P.W.-2), Kaushilya Bai (P.W.-3) and Dulari Bai (P.W.-4). The testimony of the complainant Lekhram (P.W.-1) also finds support from the medical evidence Ex.P- 7) and the statement of doctor Firatram Nirala (P.W.-8). Bhuwan Lal Soni (P.W.-7) supports the seizure (Ex.P-3) and the Nuksani Panchnama (Ex.P-2). Witnesses were cross-examined at length by defence, but nothing incriminating could be elicited so as to disbelieve their testimonies. Since nothing has been brought on record by the defence to controvert the case of prosecution, this Court does not find any good reason to disbelieve statements of witnesses, who have described the incident in a lucid manner. The learned trial Court after evaluating the documentary and oral evidence of witnesses, found the appellants guilty for commission of offence under 436, 451, 427, 323 and Section 294 of I.P.C. which does not call for any interference. 20. As regards the submission of learned counsel for appellants on sentence reduced to the period already undergone by appellants, considering the fact that incident took place in the year 2005, appellants are facing rigor of trial for last more than 20 years, they have already served about 24 days of jail sentence, they were the first offender, age of appellants at the time of incident was 32 and 26 years and they have no previous conviction nor any criminal antecedent, as submitted by learned counsel for appellants. In the aforementioned facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice 9 would be served if the sentences awarded to appellants are reduced to the period already undergone by them while keeping the fine amount with default sentence as imposed by the learned Court intact. 21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the appellants under Section 436, 451, 427, 323 and Section 294 of I.P.C, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 22. Appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS,2023. 23. The trial Court record along with copy of this judgment be set back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Balram