1 2026:CGHC:1229 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 569 of 2016 1. Sundarsay S/o Late Mukhi Bargah Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Tiwaragudi, Pandripani, Police Station Ramanujnagar, Civil And Revenue District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2. Moharsay Gond S/o Ghuran Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Tiwaragudi, Pandripani, Police Station Ramanujnagar, Civil And Revenue District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhat- tisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O4cer, Police Of Po- lice Station Ajak Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattis- garh ---- Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 08/01/2026 1. Today, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants when the matter was called out. This Court therefore requested for assistance from a counsel of the High Court Legal Service Committee. Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate, has been nominated to assist the Court. 2. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions 2 of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Ms. Shivali Dubey through the High Court Legal Services Committee and learned State Counsel. In view of (2014) 14 SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh), I do not consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh notice to the appellants as their interest has been duly taken care of by nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee. 3. This criminal appeal has been =led under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sen- tence dated 06.04.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Surajpur District Sura- jpur, in Special Session Trial No. 83/2013, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:- Convicted under Sections Sentenced to 323/34 of IPC RI for one year. 325/34 of IPC RI for 3 years and =ne of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of =ne, additional R.I. for two months (for each appellants) 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Jadunath Singh, had earlier deposed as a witness against the accused persons in another criminal case. Being aggrieved and enraged by the said act, on the intervening night of 05.03.2008 at about 12:00 midnight, the accused persons, armed with lathis, sticks, iron crowbars and other deadly weapons, went to the house of the complainant and started knocking at the door while hurling obscene and caste-based abuses, and threatened that since the complainant 3 had testi=ed against them in Court, he would not be spared alive. Upon hearing the commotion, when the complainant opened the door, all the accused persons forcibly entered the house and assaulted the complainant by using =sts, kicks and iron crowbars, while continuing to abuse him. Accused Kalamsai (since deceased) struck the complainant with an iron rod, which the complainant attempted to ward oD with his hand, resulting in fracture of his left hand. When the complainant’s wife, Premabai, intervened to rescue him, the accused persons also assaulted her with =sts and crowbars, causing injuries to her hand. The accused persons forcibly removed cash amounting to ₹3,000/- from a trunk kept inside the house of the complainant and, while leaving, again threatened that if the complainant dared to depose against them in any case in future, he would be killed. Thereafter, on 06.03.2008, the complainant Jadunath lodged a written report regarding the said incident at Police Station Ajak, Surajpur. On the basis of the said report, Rojnamcha Sanha No. 115/08 dated 06.03.2008 was registered, and the injured complainant Jadunath Singh and his wife Premabai were sent for medical examination to Community Health Centre, Surajpur. Subsequently, FIR No. 06/2008 was registered against the accused persons and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, one iron crowbar and the caste certi=cate of the complainant were seized, the spot map was prepared, and statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused persons were arrested on 24.09.2008. Upon completion of the entire investigation, a charge-sheet was =led by Police Station Ajak, 4 Surajpur before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur. Upon committal, the case was received by the Court of the Special Judge, Ambikapur on 30.04.2009, and thereafter, on transfer, the case was received by this Court for trial on 23.12.2015. 5. The learned Special Judge, SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Surajpuir District Surajpur after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide judgment dated 06.04.2016, convicted the appellants for the oDences punishable under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this order. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the complainant has lodged false report against the appellants that the accused/appellants assaulted the complainant and used =lthy language. The judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as well as on facts. The learned trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced the appellants and ought to have given the bene=t of doubt since the evidence submitted by the prosecution is very shaky and unbelievable. The Court below failed to appreciate the evidence and documents available on record. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the complainant. Hence, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellants argued that if the Court =nds that the alleged incident has been committed by the appellants, then considering the fact that incident in question took place as back as in the year 2008 and now almost more than 17 5 years have been lapsed; during these years, the appellants must have suDered tremendous mental trauma and anguish of trial; they were in custody for , they have no any previous criminal antecedents; presently the appellant No. 1 -Sundersai is aged about 72 years, appellant No. 2 Mohan Sai is aged about 62 years, learned counsel only emphasized that sentence may be modi=ed suitably by enhancing the =ne amount as the appellants have already undergone two days of jail sentence awarded by the trial Court and bail was also granted to them by this Court on 27.04.2016. Therefore, the sentence already undergone by them may be su4ce to meet the ends of justice by enhancing the =ne amount. 8. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, 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 that the complainant, Jadunath Singh, had earlier deposed as a witness against the accused persons in another criminal case. Being aggrieved and enraged by the said act, on the intervening night of 05.03.2008 at about 12:00 midnight, the accused persons, armed with lathis, sticks, iron crowbars and other deadly weapons, went to the house of the complainant and started knocking at the door while hurling obscene 6 and caste-based abuses, and threatened that since the complainant had testi=ed against them in Court, he would not be spared alive. Upon hearing the commotion, when the complainant opened the door, all the accused persons forcibly entered the house and assaulted the complainant by using =sts, kicks and iron crowbars, while continuing to abuse him. Accused Kalamsai (since deceased) struck the complainant with an iron rod, which the complainant attempted to ward oD with his hand, resulting in fracture of his left hand. When the complainant’s wife, Premabai, intervened to rescue him, the accused persons also assaulted her with =sts and crowbars, causing injuries to her hand. The accused persons forcibly removed cash amounting to ₹3,000/- from a trunk kept inside the house of the complainant and, while leaving, again threatened that if the complainant dared to depose against them in any case in future, he would be killed. Thereafter, on 06.03.2008, the complainant Jadunath lodged a written report regarding the said incident at Police Station Ajak, Surajpur. 11. The evidence of the complainant Jadunath Singh (PW-02) and Premabai (PW-01) is unimpeachable on the point that at about 12:00 midnight the accused persons came outside their house and pushed the door. When the complainant Jadunath Singh opened the door and came out, the accused Kalamsai (since deceased) struck him on the head with a crowbar, which the complainant warded oD with his hand, resulting in a fracture of his hand bone. At the same time, Moharsai sat on the complainant and assaulted him with kicks and =sts. At the time of the incident, the accused Sundarsai, was standing outside the 7 house and was instigating the accused persons to assault the complainant. According to the complainant, when his wife Premabai came to intervene, the accused Kalamsai (since deceased) and Moharsai assaulted Premabai as well. Premabai (PW-01) has also corroborated the aforesaid statements of the complainant and has stated that she too was assaulted by the accused Moharsai, as a result of which she sustained injuries. The statements of the complainant Jadunath Singh (PW-02) and Premabai (PW-01) remained unshaken in cross-examination and are further corroborated by medical evidence. 12. Dr. I.D. Bhatnagar (PW-04) has categorically certi=ed that the complainant Jadunath Singh had fractures of the left radius and ulna bones, and that the said injury was grievous in nature, whereas Premabai sustained injuries of simple nature. Thus, the statements of the complainant and his wife Premabai are duly supported by medical evidence, and no contradiction or rebuttal thereof could be brought on record. 13. The accused persons had gone to the complainant’s house, and in furtherance of their common intention, the accused Moharsai and the accused Kalamsai (since deceased) assaulted the complainant and his wife. At the time of the incident, the other accused, Sundarsai and Jairam, were standing outside the house and were instigating the other accused persons, namely Moharsai and Kalamsai (since deceased), to assault the complainant. Thus, it is clear that all the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted the complainant and his wife Premabai. Thus, it is evident that the 8 accused Moharsai and Sundarsai (caste-Bargah) were present at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident, and both of them shared the common intention to assault the complainant and his wife Premabai. 14. The trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted each appellants for the oDences punishable under Section 325/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and =ne of Rs.500/- and under Section 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year. 15. Considering the material available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I am of the view that the trial Court did not commit any illegality or in=rmity in the =ndings recorded by trial Court as regards conviction of the appellants under Sections 325/34 & 323/34 of the IPC. 16. So far as, the sentence part is concerned, considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, looking to the injury sustained by injured and deceased, the fact that the incident took place around 17 years ago, at the relevant time the age of the appellant No. 1 -Sundersai is aged about 72 years, appellant No. 2 Mohan Sai is aged about 62 years; during pendency of this appeal the appellants were on bail since 2016; and did not misuse the liberty granted to them and keeping in view the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478, we are of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellants back to 9 jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served, if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 17. However =ne amount is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs.3000/- under Section 325/34 of the IPC and Rs. 1000/- under Section 323/34 of the IPC (total Rs. 8000/-). Enhanced =ne amount shall be deposited by each of the appellants within a period of three months from today before the concerned trial Court. If the enhanced =ne amount is not deposited by the appellants within the stipulated time, they shall further undergo as has been ordered by the Special Judge, SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Surajpur District Surajpur (C.G.). Ordered accordingly. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellants under section 325/34 and 323/34 of the IPC is maintained and the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 19. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 20. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti