1 2026:CGHC:8322 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.521 of 2017 1 - Mangal Netam S/o Shakha Ram Netam, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Khapari Darbar, Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Lakki, S/o Mangal Netam, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Khapari Darbar Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Hemant, S/o Mangal Netam, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Khapari Darbar Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Chhuikhadan, District -Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Saneeta Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Rajkumar Sahu, P.L. SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.17 17:14:05 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board 16.02.2026 1. This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 21.03.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Case Atrocity No.34/2015 whereby, the Appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 506-B, 147/149 and 294 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 month and to pay fine of Rs.100/- under Section 506-B IPC and to undergo RI for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs.100/- under Sections 147/149 and 294 IPC with usual default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a report was lodged by Indrohit Sahu at Police Station Chuikhadan stating that he has a shop adjoining the village and that Kamti Bai, the Sarpanch of village Khapri Darbar, along with her husband and children, had blocked the common village pathway for the last 3–4 days. It was further stated that about 2–3 years earlier also, they had claimed the said common pathway as their own and had obstructed it, which was later reopened by the Tehsildar. In relation to the same pathway dispute, on 15.06.2015 at about 8:00 p.m., the 3 Sarpanch’s elder son, Lucky Netam, came in front of his shop, declared that he had closed the pathway and started abusing him in filthy language. Upon hearing the commotion, Kamti Bai, Mangal Netam, Shakharam, Heman and Jagautin arrived there carrying sticks and began striking them on the ground. Balram Sahu, Rekhu Nishad, Bathu Nishad, Tahlu Nishad and other residents of the locality and village gathered at the spot and questioned the abuses, whereupon the Appellants again became aggressive and started pelting stones. On the following day, i.e., 16.06.2015, Kamti Bai along with her family again came in front of his shop, abused him and threatened to assault him with slippers; however, upon arrival of villagers, they returned to their house. It was also alleged that the accused/Appellants used to harass the complainant under the influence of liquor and that Kamti Bai, asserting her position as Sarpanch and her social influence, used to threaten him with false reporting. They were also armed with pistols used as weapon of offence and committed rioting against the victim by using filthy language and also committed criminal intimidation. After inquiry into the said report, a First Information Report was registered against the accused/Appellants under Sections 4 147, 341, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The spot map was prepared, the accused persons were arrested, statements of witnesses were recorded, and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the subordinate court. Since the matter was a counter case, it was transferred to this Court for trial in accordance with the order of the learned Sessions Court. Charges as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment were framed against the accused/Appellants, read over and explained to them, which they denied. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused/Appellants pleaded innocence and stated that they had been falsely implicated, and although they expressed their intention to lead defence evidence, no defence evidence was ultimately adduced. After completion of trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellants as mentioned above. Hence, this Appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that she does not want to challenge the conviction part of the Appellants and confines her argument to the sentence part only, which according to her is on higher side. She further submits that no injury has been caused to the victim in the incident and 5 admitted the fact that a counter case has been registered by the Appellants against the victim. She further submits that the Appellants have been facing the lis since June, 2015, they are the first offenders and they have already deposited the fine amount and have no previous criminal antecedents, therefore, the jail sentence awarded to them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 4. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the Appeal and supported the impugned judgment. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence and the fact that no injury has been caused to the victim and also considering that a counter case has been registered by the Appellants against the victim, the fact that date of incident is 15.06.2015 and a period of 10 years has already elapsed and this is the first offence of the Appellants, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met if, while maintaining the conviction of the Appellants, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to the period already 6 undergone. 7. Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellants under the aforesaid provision is affirmed, but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine shall remain in tact. 8. The records of the Court below be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Priya