1 2026:CGHC:475 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 273 of 2007 1. Suresh Yadav, Aged about 27 years S/o Suklal Yadav. 2. Mana @ Santosh Kumar S/o Makhanlal Dhruv, aged about 24 years. 3. Raj Kumar S/o Ram Singh Dhruv. aged about 26 years. All are R/o Baniyapara, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.). ----Appellants VERSUS  State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Dhamtari Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) ---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellants : Mr. DN Prajapati, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, PL. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on board 05.01.2026. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.04.2007, passed in ST No.15/2006 by learned Additional Session Judge, Dhamtari, 2 Chhattisgarh, whereby appellants stand convicted and sentence as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 307/34 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years & fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine. Under Section 323/34 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months & fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine. Under Section 323/34 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months & fine of Rs.250/-. In default of payment of fine, 04- 04 months additional RI to each appellants. All the sentences run concurrently 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that on 18.03.2003 in the evening, when the Chetan Kumar Soni was standing at Mandir Chowk, then appellant No.1/Suresh and Ghasi Yadav came and abused and assaulted him; said incident was reported to the complainant party then Prakash, Vijay Thakur, Rupendra, Nagendra Thakur, Dinesh Thakur and Devendra Soni came there and they were taking the injured/Chetan Kumar to his house, however, on the way, appellants and Ghasi Yadav again came there and assaulted the complainant -Prakash by means of Knife, stick and belt. In the said assault/incident, Ruperndra, Chetan & Vijay Singh Thakur were also sustained injuries. 3 Based upon report lodged by complainant, FIR was lodged and accused have been arrested in the aforementioned offenc/crime. 3. During the trial, accused/Ghasi has died, therefore, his trial/case has been closed. 4. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and based upon which, trial Court framed the charges against them. 5. In order to prove guilt of appellants, prosecution examined total 13 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellants (accused) were recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and confined his argument to the quantum of sentence only. He submits that incident had taken place on 18.03.2003, there was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, appellants have already served out more than 02 years of jail sentence, it was first offence of appellants and, thereafter, they had not indulged 4 themselves in any other criminal activity, at the time of incident appellants were aged about 24-27 years and at present they are aged about more than 55 years of age, therefore, no purpose would be served by again sending the appellants jail after a lapse of about 22 years. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer of learned counsel for appellants, would submit that looking to the nature of offence and injury sustained by the victim/Prakash by means of knife assaulted by appellant No.1/Suresh Yadav, 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. PW-6/Chetan Kumar Soni in his evidence has stated that on the alleged date, altercation occurred between the parties on two occasions with regard to removal of a bicycle at Madh Mandir Chowk; firstly at Madh Mandir Chowk where the Holi was burning and secondly at Durga Chowk. Prakash Soni, Rupendra Soni, Surendra Patel, Vijay Nanakani, Vijay Thakur and Sudhir Thakur came together near the place of occurrence and only committed mar-peet with appellant No.1/Suresh and did not throw him into the burning Holi. He further admitted that upon seeing him in injured condition, Prakash Soni and all the boys 5 accompanying with him became agitated and dragged the accused/appellant No.1/Suresh upto the burning Holi. He further admitted that Prakash Soni only used the word “saale” to the accused/Prakash, however, the boys, who accompanied Prakash Soni have abused the Suresh in filthy language. There was scuffle among the Prakash Soni parties and accused/appellants. 11. Though learned counsel for appellants 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. 12. 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 the aforesaid offence. 13. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the detention period of the appellants and the fact that incident took place in the year 2003, i.e. ,more than 22 years have elapsed, further on the alleged date, altercation occurred between the parties on 6 two occasions with regard to removal of a bicycle; Prakash Soni and boys accompanied with him committed mar-peet with appellant No.1/Suresh also dragged him upto the burning Holi; Prakash Soni and other have abused the Suresh in filthy language; further considering that age of appellants at the time of incident were about 24-27 years and at present they are aged about more than 55 years of age, 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 by enhancing fine amount. 14. In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellants under the aforementioned Sections is hereby affirmed, however, sentences imposed upon appellants under aforesaid Sections are hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by them. 15. The fine amount imposed upon the appellants under Section 307/34 is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/-. The amount of fine be deposited in the trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7 16. On deposit of enhanced fine amount, the same shall be paid to the victim or legal heirs of victim as compensation. In default of payment of enhanced fine amount, appellants will have to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. Amount of fine, if any, already deposited shall be adjusted. 17. Record of case be sent back to the concerned Court below forthwith with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-