1 2026:CGHC:18504 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1854 of 2017 1 - Ram Sagar S/o Durguram Markam Aged About 29 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Saimunda, Police Outpost Dudhawa, Police Station Narharpur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shambu Ram Markam S/o Mohan Singh Markam Aged About 40 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Saimunda, Police Station Outpost Dudhawa, Police Station Narharpur, District Kanker. , District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Satish Manavi, S/o Sevakram Mandavi, Aged About 20 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Saimunda, Police Outpost Dudhawa, Police Station Narharpur, District Kanker, Civil And Revenue District North Bastar Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Narharpur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Ms. Arya Shrivastava and Mr. Rakesh Manikpuri, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 17/04/2026 Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.11.2007 passed by the learned Session Judge, North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) in Session Trial No.3/2017, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 323/34 (Two Times) and 341/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.100/- and SI for 15 days with fine of Rs.100/-, respectively, with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged by complainant Sukhdev Ram Uikey, father of deceased Yashwant to the effect that on 11.10.2016 his son Yashwant had gone to see 'Rawan Dahan but he did not return home till dinner time, they went in his search but he could not be found. Next morning one Pritam Sori came to his house and told him that elderly members of the village called him and when he reached near the holler mill situated inside the locality he found his son Yashwant hanging in the beam of said mill and he was dead. During merg inquiry, scratch marks were noticed on the neck of the deceased and therefore the body was sent for post-mortem examination to ascertain the real cause of death. The cause of death was opined as cardio respiratory arrest due to multiple injuries and the death was homicidal in nature and during the course of enquiry, statements of witnesses Sukhdev. Toman and Mahendra were recorded on 11. 10. 2016 and it has come in their statement that they along with deceased and one Sushila Netam 3 were going to village Kotalbhatti to see cultural programme. On the way, the accused persons stopped them and assaulted them by hands & fists as a result of which deceased Yashwant died. Thereafter the accused persons hanged the body of deceased. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and did not consider omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. There is no evidence to show that as to which accused had assaulted the injured and therefore the trial Court erred in holding the appellants responsible for the injuries caused to the injured. Where the evidence against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and if some of the accused persons have been acquitted, the remaining accused persons cannot be treated differently on the basis of the same evidence. In the present case also the evidence against the present appellants and acquitted accused are identical and when the co- accused had been acquitted there was no reason to treat the appellants differently on the basis of the same evidence. In order to constitute an offence under Section 341 IP C it must be established that the complainant was obstructed from proceeding along a particular direction. In absence of any evidence showing 4 that the deceased had been wrongfully restraint by the appellants, it cannot be said that the appellants have committed an act which amounts to an offence under Section 341 of IPC, despite that the learned Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant, hence prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Alternatively, He submits that the incident took place in the year 2016, this appeal is pending since 2017, the appellants remained in jail for about 6 months and have never misused the liberty granted by this Court and presently they are aged between 30-40 years, therefore, the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant, as such no interference is called for. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 341, 294, 506 Part-II, 323 (two times), 120-B and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC against all the accused persons. After appreciation of oral 5 and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the other co-accused persons of the aforesaid charges, whereas convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. Looking to the statement of PW-1 Sukhdeo Ram Uike, PW-2 Tomanlal, PW-3 Mahendra Kumar, PW-4 Devi Prasad, PW-5 Sushila Netam, PW-6 Bhagwan Singh Netam, PW-7 Rakesh Markam, PW-8 Premjeet Markam, PW-9 Panchuram Markam, PW-10 Narayan Kosma, PW-11 Dr. Sunil Kumar Soni, PW-12 Rajkumar Lahre and PW-13 Rakesh Khuteshwar, it is clear that the learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the statement of all witnesses and documentary evidence including the medical report and rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 323 (two times) read with Section 34 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC, as such the conviction of the appellants is hereby affirmed. 8. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2016, this appeal is pending since 2017, the appellants remained in jail for about 6 months and have never misused the liberty granted by this Court and presently they are aged between 30-40 years, therefore, the appellants may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them, therefore, ends of justice would be served if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. 6 9. The appeal is partly allowed. 10. The appellants are reported to be on bail. 11. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each before the Court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala