1 2026:CGHC:5011 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1115 of 2016 Prabhu Prasad Yadav S/o Pragash Yadav, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Lahsunpath, P. S. Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Ms. Kusum Lakhchandani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. AK Yadav, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Mr. Surendra Dewangan, PL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 29.01.2026 1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.08.2016 passed in Session Trial No.98/2007, by which, learned Additional Session 2 Judge, Ramanujganj, District -Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for 01 year and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 50 days. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.10.2006, appellant and his wife Smt. Murti Bai have abused the complainant and her relative and also beaten them by the Axe. On the same day, report has been lodged by complainant Shanti Bai against the appellant and his wife Smt. Murti Bai before the concerned police Station, based upon which, FIR was registered against the appellant and his wife for offence under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 323/34, 324/34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and trial Court framed the charges against him for offence under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 323/34, 324/34 of Indian Penal Code. 4. In order to prove guilt of appellant, prosecution examined total 09 witnesses and their statements were recorded. However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 3 5. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that complainant party have beaten the appellant and his wife and also committed murder of their son namely Mahavir Yadav and on the same day F.I.R. was lodged against the complainant Shanti Bai Somnath, Sitaram, Anil Kumar for offence punishable under Sections 302, 324, 323 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. against the complainant party and learned trial Court has convicted all the accused persons for life imprisonment. 7. Learned Counsel further contended that she is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and confining her argument to the quantum of sentence only. She submits that incident had taken place in the year 2006 and about nineteen years have elapsed since then, it was first offence of appellant and thereafter he had not indulged himself in any other criminal activity, at the time of incident appellant was aged about 45 years and at present he is more about 64 years of age, therefore, no purpose would be served sending the appellant jail after a lapse of about 19 years. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to appellant be set-aside. 4 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant after considering all the aspect of the case, therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 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 appellant and restricted her 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. PW-3/Ramnath in his evidence has stated that on the date of alleged incident, appellant/Prabhu Nath suddenly ran towards his wife (victim) carrying an Axe (tangi) and assaulted her by the Axe on her head and face, due to which, she suffered injuries. 12. PW-4/Sitaram in his evidence has stated that on the date of alleged incident, accused Prabhu Prasad Yadav assaulted his mother (victim) by means of Axe (tangi) on her head and face, due to which, she suffered injuries and become unconscious. 13. PW-5/Shanti Bai (injured) in her evidence has stated that on 5 the date of alleged incident, she was harvesting paddy in our field alongwith her husband Ramnath, at that time, appellant- accused suddenly ran from his field carrying a Axe (tangi) and assaulted her, as a result of which, she sustained injuries on her head and right eye. She fell down and became unconscious. 14. 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 appellant 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 appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. 15. With regard to the quantum of sentence, this Court has taken into consideration the fact that the incident in question occurred in the year 2006 and about nineteen years have elapsed since then, this Court further takes note age of the appellant, prolonged pendency of criminal proceedings and the mental agony suffered by the appellant during this period, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would now be served by directing the appellant to undergo the sentence of imprisonment at this distant point of time. The ends 6 of justice would, therefore, be met by setting aside the sentence of imprisonment and by suitably enhancing the fine amount imposed upon the appellant. 16. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby maintained. However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant is set aside. The fine amount imposed upon the appellant is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, which shall be deposited by the appellant within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Amount of fine, if any, already deposited shall be adjusted. 17. Record of trial Court alongwith copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-