1 CGHC010075482011 2026:CGHC:39790 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 678 of 2011 1 - Jitendra @ Palu Matiyara, S/o Pawan Dheemar, aged 29 years, Occupation- Labour R/o near Shitla Mandir Ramkund, Raipur, PS Saraswati Nagar, Raipur (CG) 2 - Shyam Kumar S/o Lt. Shri Ramji Karikar, aged 34 Occupation Labour R/o near Shitla Mandir Ramkund, Raipur, PS Saraswati Nagar, Raipur (CG) 3 - Ramesh Kumar @ Naru Matiyara S/o Pawan Dheemar, aged 26 years, Occupation Labour R/o near Shitla Mandir Ramkund, Raipur, PS Saraswati Nagar, Raipur (CG) ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, through the PS Saraswati Nagar Raipur (CG). ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Vimal Pathak and Ms. Jyoti Roy, Advocates on behalf of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate For Respondent / State : Mr. Ujjawal Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 09/09/2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C.’), RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.09.16 10:05:02 +0530 2 challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2011 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (henceforth referred to as ‘trial Court) in Sessions Case No.148/2010, which was registered as a counter case to Sessions Case No.20/2010. By the impugned judgment, learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, after holding the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced each of them in the following manner :- Conviction under Section Jail Sentence Fine Sentence Default stipulation 323/34, IPC RI for 1 year Rs.1000/- RI for 03 months 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 18.10.2009 at about 10 pm, the appellants along with another co-accused, namely, ‘Ramlal Yadav @ Illi’ came near Thakre Chowk, Ramkund, Raipur and started abusing the complainant Sundar Lal regarding the drums and bands being played during the ‘Gouri-Goura Pooja’. When the complainant asked them not to abuse him, the appellants assaulted him with a base (batta), hands and fists. The altercation was intervened by the relatives of complainant, whereupon some pushing was also done with them. Thereafter the accused persons fled from the spot. The complainant lodged a report of the incident at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, on the basis of which an FIR was registered against the appellants and the co-accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506(B), 34 of the IPC was filed against the appellants and another co-accused, namely, Ramlal Yadav @ Illi, who was absconding, before the concerned Magistrate. It is pertinent to mention here that an FIR had also been lodged against the complainant/victim by 3 Lalit Sahu in respect of the same incident. After investigation, charge sheet for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506-B & 307/34, IPC was filed, which was registered as Sessions Trial No.20/2010 in which the appellants of instant case were witnesses. Since the present case arose out of the same occurrence and was a counter case to Sessions Trial No.20/2010, the present case was also transferred and tried as a counter case. 3. Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 294 & 323/34 of the IPC, who abjured their guilt and claimed for trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. Statements of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which, they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution claiming themselves to be innocent and falsely implicated. The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence. 4. After recording evidence and completing other procedural formalities, learned Second Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 294 IPC, but convicted them for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced them as mentioned in the opening paragraph. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred instant appeal. 5. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that he does not want to press this appeal as regards to the conviction part of the impugned judgment, rather he would confine his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He would further submit that alleged injuries sustained by the victim were simple in nature and that the dispute 4 occurred all of a sudden on trivial issue. He further submits that the appeal filed by the accused persons in Session Trial No.20/2010 arising out of the same occurrence has already been allowed by this Court by modifying their conviction from Section 307/34 of IPC to 325/34 of IPC. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants in instant case have already remained in jail for more than 2 months and, therefore, considering the nature of the offence, the simple injuries sustained by victim and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the jail sentence imposed upon the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel does not oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned in the present appeal. 8. Though learned counsel for the appellants is not pressing the instant appeal on the conviction part of the impugned judgment, but Sundar Lal (PW 1), the injured witness, has supported the case of prosecution and has specifically stated that the appellants assaulted him during the incident. His statement also gets support from the statements of Pradeep Kumar (PW 2) and Kumar Dhruv (PW 3). Dr. Tarun Kumar Dhruv (PW 8) has also proved their deposition that the victim Sundar Lal (PW 1) had sustained two injuries over the head, in the temporal / occipital region, which were simple in nature. Having considered the evidence available on record, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court holding the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 323/34 of the IPC does not call for any interference and is hereby affirmed. 9. So far as the sentence part is concerned, having considered the nature 5 of injury sustained to the victim and attending facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view the fact that the appellants have already served out of jail imprisonment for about more than 2 months against the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court, this court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the appellants in detention to complete the period of sentence awarded by the learned trial Court; rather ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 10. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction part of the impugned judgment against the appellants is maintained, but jail sentence imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone by them, i.e., from 15.12.2009 to 29.12.2009 and 30.08.2011 to 17.10.2011. 11. The appellants are stated to be on bail. Their bail bonds furnished by the appellants shall remain in force for a further period of six months as per the provisions contained under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 12. Record of the concerned Sessions Judge along with a copy of this judgment be sent back forthwith for compliance and needful, if any. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar