1 / 9 2025:CGHC:59575 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1071 of 2003 1 - Deleted (Champabai) In Compliance Of Honble Court Order Dated 22- 01-2025 2 - Heera Singh S/o Jhumuk Satnami Aged About 31 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Uslapur Tahsil Bemetara, Sub Division Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Gopal S/o Fandi Satnami Aged About 40 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Uslapur Tahsil Bemetara, Sub Division Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Ashok @ Munna S/o Fandi Satnami Aged About 34 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Uslapur Tahsil Bemetara, Sub Division Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Kaliya Bai W/o Govind Satnami Aged About 42 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Uslapur Tahsil Bemetara, Sub Division Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) 6 - Deleted (Thukel) In Compliance Of Honble Court Order Dated 22-01- 2025 7 - Munnu @ Mannudas S/o Shyamlal Satnami Aged About 40 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Uslapur Tahsil Bemetara, Sub Division Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) 8 - Devsing S/o Jhumuk Satnami Aged About 25 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Uslapur Tahsil Bemetara, Sub Division Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) 9 - Gokul S/o Fandi Satnami Aged About 32 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Uslapur Tahsil Bemetara, Sub Division Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) 10 - Govind S/o Fandi Satnami Aged About 45 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Uslapur Tahsil Bemetara, Sub Division Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) 11 - Prem @ Premlal S/o Shyamlal Satnami Aged About 34 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Uslapur Tahsil Bemetara, Sub Division Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) ... appellants(s) versus 2 / 9 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bemetara ---Respondent For appellants : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Order on Board 08 . 12 .202 5 1. Pending the Appeal before this Court, appellants- Champabai and Thukel died and as such the Appeal so far as appellants- Champabai and Thukel is concerned, stand abated and the Appeals now are being prosecuted only on behalf of the other appellants. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sen- tence dated passed by the learned 3rd Additional District and Ses- sion Judge (FTC) Bemetara District Durg (C.G.) in S.T. No. 294/1994, whereby the appellantss have been convicted and sen- tenced as follows:- Convicted under Sections Sentenced to 395, 397 and 332 of IPC R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that vide challan in respect of crime no. 141/93 of the police Station Bemetera registering the case under section 395, 397 and 332 of the IPC and section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and also under section 5 and 7 of the Explosive Act against each one of the accused/appellantss and also against one Kehar, two Asma Begam and Doman @ Sattar declared one as 3 / 9 absconding and also against Bhagchand respectively described in the judgement as accused no. 8,9,10 and 13 Bhagchand accused died during the trial of the case. The case were committed against him. The story launched through the FIR dated 26/4/1993 by SDOP Shri S.L. Dhoulpuria wherein as stated that he along with his police party in 2-3 jeep consisting of about 10 police men including S.D.O. Shri Sharma, Head Constable Shri Shivji Pandey and Constables Jalaluddn and others in company with 4-5 more persons who were civilians alongwith the driver of the respective jeeps reached village Uslapur during noon time at about l'o clock and entered inside the house of Fandi who being a paralysis patient was lying in bed. Ac- cused persons namely Govind, Gopal, Gokul and Munna are sons of Fandi and as per the report it is alleged that a massage was re- ceived from the Mukhbir/Messanger that at Uslapur some Mo- hammedans having antecedents in Kolkata have come with explo- sive materials and deadly weapons are staying in the house of Fandi. On this information accompanied by several police ofÏcers as stated above in all more than about 15 persons reached the vil- lage Uslapur. Shri S.L. Dhoulpuria inquired about the Mohammedan guest and while so doing the said Domen @Abdul Sattar came of from the house and attempted to run away, on this head constable Jalaluddin caught him and while doing so all accused persons as- sembled with a common object armed with lathi, farsa, talwar and started attacking the police party, abuses were heard and beating started between the police party and the accused persons. During this assault and scufÒe police gun in custody of Shivji Pandey i.e. ri- fle no. 242 body no. 20532 was snached away by accused persons. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the police party was en- circled by the accused persons which resulted in the injury on the 4 / 9 police party. Apprehending danger one of the police constable namely Jalaluddin fired three shots by his rifle in the air and there- after they return back to the police station Bemetara. It is also al- leged that while doing so the accused persons have also damaged the vehicle belonging to the police. after returning from a village FIR was registered on 26/4/1993 bearing crime no. 141/94 investigation followed and consequently alongwith police Challan no. 172/93 dated 20/7/1993 was filed against the accused persons under sec- tions as stated above. The committal court committed the case for the trial before the Learned Sessions Court. 4. The learned 3rd Additional District and Session Judge (FTC) Be- metara District Durg (C.G.), after appreciating oral and documen- tary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 27.09.2003, convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. (I) Heera Singh Custody Period: 05.05.1993 to 06.11.1993 Jail Period from Judgment: 27.09.2003 to 12.10.2003 Total Jail Period: approx. 6 months (II) Gopal Custody Period: 05.05.1993 to 25.08.1993 Jail Period from Judgment: 27.09.2003 to 12.10.2003 Total Jail Period: approx. 4 months 5 days (III) Ashok @ Munna Custody Period: 05.05.1993 to 29.12.1993 Jail Period from Judgment: 27.09.2003 to 12.10.2003 Total Jail Period: approx. 8 months (IV) Kaliyabai Custody Period: 07.05.1993 to 21.05.1993 Jail Period from Judgment: 27.09.2003 to 12.10.2003 Total Jail Period: approx. 1 month (V) Mannu @ Manudas Custody Period: 08.05.1993 to 06.11.1993 Jail Period from Judgment: 27.09.2003 to 12.10.2003 Total Jail Period: approx. 6 months 15 days 5 / 9 (VI) Dev Singh Custody Period: 01.05.1993 to 21.05.1993 Jail Period from Judgment: 27.09.2003 to 12.10.2003 Total Jail Period: approx. 1 month 5 days (VII) Gokul Custody Period: 01.05.1993 to 18.04.1994 Jail Period from Judgment: 27.09.2003 to 12.10.2003 Total Jail Period: approx. 11 months 1 week (VIII) Govinda Custody Period: 1. 08.05.1993 to 12.12.1993 2. 22.12.1993 to 25.08.1994 Jail Period from Judgment: 27.09.2003 to 12.10.2003 Total Jail Period: approx. 1 year 3 months (IX) Prem @ Premlal Custody Period: 08.05.1993 to 06.11.1993 Jail Period from Judgment: 27.09.2003 to 12.10.2003 Total Jail Period: approx. 6 months 15 days 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants is innocent persons and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid case. Learned Trial Court was in gross error in over looking the vital contradictions, omissions in the statement of the PW/5 and also in the statements of the individual witnesses particularly on points of carrying sword, farsa and tabbal as the challan papers does not mention the use of aforesaid weapons. So also where the question of assault, snatching of the gun was committed inside the residen- tial house which is nowhere mentioned in the challan or in the judg- ment itself but the map of incident prepared by the patwari shows that the question had taken place in the house of Fandi. For the simple reason that the injuries so called, were superficial in nature would be abrasion, nothing on the vital part of the body. The articles were not exhibited of the so called assault by tabbal or farsa. The offence of dacoity or robbery inside the house of accused person of a gun can not be contemplated as giving rise to a concept of gain to 6 / 9 the accused person in any form or loss to the police party, therefore the charge itself at the very conception is very ridiculous on the one hand in coherent, unconvincing, unreasonable and beyond pru- dence and human behavior. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned Court has quoted the sections of IPC without verifying that the facts of the case no where attract the provisions of 'dacoity' theft, extor- tion and innocent accused persons who had done nothing, not at all participated in any manner without identification have been con- victed. The identification parade was conducted beyond reasonable time/days of the commission of crime being a material infirmity in the judgment. In over all and in totality of the evidence the accused persons should have been given benefit of doubt which the learned trial court has failed to consider due to inconsiderate, blind incredi- ble interested witnesses of the prosecution. No independent wit- ness was examined while those examined were declared hostile and did not spell the prosecution story in any of the extracts of the commission of the offence. Therefore the learne court ought to have held that the prosecution could not prove their case beyond doubt. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits and confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. Further, learned counsel for appel- lants submits that the appellants were aged more than 30 years in the year 2003 and as they are facing criminal trial since 2001 and the appellants have already undergone as aforementioned awarded by the trial Court. There is also no previous criminal antecedents against the appellants. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Learned counsel for appellants placed his reliance upon the 7 / 9 decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the matters of Ajay Kumar Sarthi V. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 243 of 2022, Pritam Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 903 of 2015 and Yogendra Singh Markam Vs. State of Chhattis- garh in CRA No. 1760 of 2022, the Cor-ordinate Bench has re- duced the sentence to the period already undergone, and therefore, similar relief may be extended to the appellantss herein as well. 8. Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appel- lants, in which no interference 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 the fact that the incident took place in the house of appellant No. 5 Kaliya Bai. Father-in-law of the appellant No. 1 was paralysis patient and there was a mar- riage in the family of the appellants. The Police people came and entered the house of appellant No. 5 and thereafter arrested the ap- pellants. The appellants No. 1 and 5 are ladies. 12 Police persons armed themselves with weapons came to the house of the appel- lants. 11 accused persons including ladies persons, assaulted the police and snatched rifle from one police man Shivji Pandey. 11.It is evident that the appellants neither kept, attempted to keep, nor in any manner participated in committing theft, carrying away, or at- tempting to carry away any property obtained by theft. The appel- lants did not voluntarily cause or attempt to cause hurt to any per- son, nor did they create any restraint or fear of restraint for the pur- pose of extortion. 8 / 9 12. This Court is of the opinion that, at the time of the incident, the ap- pellants were in their own house, where a marriage ceremony was taking place in their family. Twelve police personnel, armed with weapons, entered the house of the appellants. In such circum- stances, it is clear that the appellants had no intention or plan to commit loot or dacoity. Consequently, the essential ingredients of theft, robbery, or extortion are entirely absent in their case. As there is no proof of robbery or loot, the convictions and sentences under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC imposed by the trial Court against the appellants are hereby set aside. 13.However, it is established from the evidence that a scufÒe occurred between the police party and the appellants. The appellants as- saulted the police personnel using wooden sticks (lathi), as well as by means of hands and fists. Accordingly, the case against the ap- pellants falls within the ambit of Section 332 of IPC, and their con- viction under Section 332 of IPC is maintained. 14. As regards the sentence awarded to them, considering that the ap- pellants have been facing criminal trial since 1993 and more than 32 years have elapsed, and taking into account their present age and the fact that they have already undergone the sentence awarded by the trial Court under Section 332 of IPC, there is no useful purpose in sending them back to jail. The period already undergone by the appellants adequately meets the ends of justice. 15. As a result, the convictions and sentences under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC are set aside, the conviction under Section 332 of IPC is maintained, and the sentence under Section 332 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. 16. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged. Any fine, if deposited, shall be dealt with in accordance with law. 9 / 9 17. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is partly al- lowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 18. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judge Jyoti