1 2026:CGHC:19496 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 08.04.2026 28.04.2026 -- 28.04.2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 14 of 2012 1. Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Sahu, aged about 28 years, R/o village- Kevtara, Police Station-Saja, District- Durg (C.G.) 2. Jitendra Kumar @ Jittu, S/o Shri Meghnath Sahu, aged about 28 years, R/o village- Kevtara, Police Station-Saja, District- Durg (C.G.) 3. Yogesh Sahu, S/o Shri Meghnath Sahu, aged about 24 years, R/o village- Kevtara, Police Station-Saja, District- Durg (C.G.) --- Appellants versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Saja, Distt.-Durg, C.G. --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 37 of 2012 • Meghnath Sahu(Died And Deleted) As Per Court Order Dated 10-03- 2026, Through Lrs.- (A) Smt. Ambika Sahu W/o Late Meghnath Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward 3, Village Kenwatara, Post- Bortara, Tehsil- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 (B) Jitendra Sahu S/o Late Meghnath Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward 3,Village Kenwatara, Post- Bortara, Tehsil- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (C)Yogesh Sahu S/o Late Meghnath Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward 3, Village Kenwatara, Post Bortara, Tehsil- Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S. Saja, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Kanchan Lalwani, Advocate in CRA No. 37/2012 and Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate in CRA No. 14/2012 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. As both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara in Sessions Trial No. 08/2010, they are heard analogously and being disposed of by this common judgment. The trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC R.I. for 06 months to each and fine amount of Rs. 1,000 each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 01 month to each. Under Section 323 read with Fine amount of Rs. 500/- to 3 Section 34 of IPC each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 15 days to each. (Both the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently) 2. As per the case of the prosecution that on 16.06.2011 at about 7:00 PM, one Mahendra Singh, a truck driver, was going towards Balodabazar from Nagpur after loading cement. On the way, he parked his truck near Ramdev Rice Mill Square on Saja Road. After parking his truck, Mahendra Singh went to the house of the complainant- Durga Singh Rajput at Amlideeh. After having his meal, he rested for some time at the complainant’s house. In the evening, Mahendra Singh returned to his truck and informed the complainant- Durga Singh over his mobile phone that his cleaner had not taken meals and requested him to make arrangements for the same. Thereafter, one Sanjay Singh came near the truck on a motorcycle and took the cleaner on the motorcycle to have his meal. Thereafter, Mahendra Singh and Sanjay Singh went to a nearby kirana shop and sat there. Meanwhile, the accused Meghnath came and asked who they were and where they were from. On which, Sanjay Singh replied that they are relatives of Durga Singh. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused Meghnath along with co-accused persons namely Jitendra, Dilip and Yogesh, assaulted them with a club. The accused demanded money from them and forcibly took Rs. 10,460/- from the purse of Sanjay Singh. When Sanjay Singh requested them for returning money, the accused returned Rs. 460/- and kept the remaining amount. Both persons were detained near the shop. When the complainant- Durga 4 Singh, arrived at the spot, he was also assaulted by the accused persons and as a result which, he sustained injuries on his lips and suffered the breaking of two teeth. On the next day, an FIR (Ex. P/1) was lodged by the complainant- Durga Singh regarding the incident. The injured persons were sent for medical examination to Government Hospital, Saja, vide Exs. P/7, P/8, and P/9, where Dr. Jyoti Dhruw (PW- 4) conducted their medical examination and gave MLC report. Considering the injuries of the complainant, he was referred to District Hospital, Durg, where Dr. S.N. Datta (PW-3), a dentist, conducted his examination, found two broken teeth, conducted an X-ray and gave reports vide Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/3 respectively. Surendra Shrivastava, S.I. (PW-1), registered the FIR under Section 394 of the IPC on the basis of the written complaint regarding the robbery of money from Sanjay Singh. The accused were arrested vide Exs. P/10, P/11, P/12 and P/13 .During the investigation, a bamboo stick (club) was seized from the accused Dilip vide Ex. P/14 in the presence of witnesses. Two broken teeth of the complainant- Durga Singh were seized from the spot of the incident vide Ex. P/5. A shirt and full pant with blood stains were seized from the complainant- Durga Singh vide Ex. P/4. A spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/2 and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of due and necessary investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, the learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants for the alleged commission of an offence under Sections 394, 294, 506-B, 323 and 325/34 of IPC. The appellants having abjured guilt, were subjected to trial. 5 3. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case against the appellants. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case and pleaded their innocence and false implication in this case. However, in their defence the appellants examined one witness. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants in CRA No. 14 of 2012 submits that he is not pressing the appeal so far as the conviction is concerned and is confining his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. He also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of R.I. for 06 months awarded to them under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC, have remained in jail for 02 days. According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2009, since then the appellants are facing the lis and this appeal is pending since 2012, the appellants are now aged more than 35 years. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents reported against the appellants and they did not misuse the liberty so granted to them, while being on bail and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. To buttress his contention, he relied upon the judgments of this Court in the matters of Premprasad Gupta vs. State of C.G.1,Sita Ram and Anr. vs. State of C.G.2 and Dhanaram @ Ramkumar Satnami vs. State of C.G. 3 1 CRA No. 669 of 2022 2 CRA No. 578 of 2009 3 CRA No. 09 of 2009 6 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in CRA No. 37 of 2012 submits that during the pendency of this appeal, the sole appellant- Meghnath Sahu has passed away and a death certificate has been filed in support thereof. However, his legal representatives have come on record to contest this appeal in compliance with the order dated 10.03.2026, as the deceased/appellant was a government servant. She contends that the impugned judgment dated 23.12.2011 is manifestly perverse, legally unsustainable and contrary to the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are not only against the weight of evidence on record, but also suffer from material irregularities and non- application of judicial mind, rendering the judgment liable to be set aside. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the dispute arose when the appellant and his sons objected to the parking of a truck in front of their house, on which complainant, Sanjay Singh, and Mahender Singh, who thereafter abused and assaulted the appellant. In order to shield themselves from legal consequences, a false and fabricated report has been lodged against the appellant, which is evident from the material available on record. The learned trial Court has gravely erred in failing to consider that the appellant had also lodged a complaint at the same police station against the complainant and Sanjay Singh, which was duly registered under Sections 294, 506, and 323 of the IPC. This crucial circumstance probabilizes the defence version and clearly indicates that the present case is a counterblast, a fact which has been completely overlooked by the trial Court. Further, the prosecution evidence suffers from glaring inconsistencies and contradictions which go to the root of the case. The complainant (PW-1 7 Durga Singh) categorically stated that one of his teeth was completely broken and another partially damaged. However, the seizure memo proved by PW-9 indicates that two completely broken teeth were recovered from the spot. This material contradiction strikes at the credibility of the prosecution story and creates a serious doubt regarding the manner of occurrence. Moreover, Sanjay Singh, in paragraph 14 of his deposition has stated that four teeth of Durga Singh were broken during the incident. This version finds no corroboration from the medical evidence, as the doctor has not recorded such injuries in the medical report. The inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence remains unexplained, thereby rendering the prosecution case doubtful and unreliable. It is further submitted that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The complainant, being a habitual litigant and well aware of legal procedures, has failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for such delay, especially when the police station is situated merely 3 kilometers from the place of occurrence. This delay casts a serious doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution story and suggests embellishment and afterthought. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its proper perspective and has also ignored vital contradictions in the medical evidence. The conviction has been recorded in a mechanical manner without proper scrutiny of the evidence, thereby resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are wholly unsustainable in law and on facts and the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. To buttress her contention, she relied upon the 8 judgment of this Court in the case Sitaram and Ors. vs. State of C.G4 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for offence under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC. So, there is no scope for interference by this Court. These appeals being without any merit are liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 8. It is evident from record of learned trial Court that it framed charges against the appellants/accused for offence punishable under Sections 394, 294, 506-B, 325 read with Section 34 and 397 of IPC. After hearing both the parties, and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, learned trial Court convicted the accused persons/appellants for the aforesaid offences. 9. The complainant- Durga Singh (PW-1) has stated that on the date of the incident, the accused- Meghnath along with the other accused persons, physically assaulted him and Sanjay Singh using their fists and a club. He further stated that, during the course of this assault, the accused also held Sanjay Singh as a hostage. 10. PW-2 Sanjay Singh has supported the statement of complainant- Durga Singh. In contrast, PW-11 Mahendra Singh did not support the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him. However, during cross-examination, he denied all suggestions put forth by the prosecution, including the 4 CRA No. 737 of 2008 9 allegation that the accused had assaulted him and disowned his alleged police statements (Exs. P/16 and P/17) on A to A parts. 11. PW-4, Dr. Jyoti Dhruw, deposed that she examined the injured individuals—Sanjay Thakur, Mahendra Singh, and Durga Singh on 17.06.2009. During the course of her examination, she observed and recorded the presence of injuries on their bodies. Following her medical assessment, she prepared and submitted her reports documenting the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by each of the injured persons. These reports have been marked as Exs. P/7, P/8, and P/9. 12. PW-3 Dr. S. N. Dutta, Dentist who examined the complainant- Durga Singh and found tooth injuries and in this regard, he gave his report vide Ex. P/3. 13. Thus, the learned trial court, upon a meticulous appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly acquitted the appellants/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 394, 294, 506-B, and 397 of the IPC, and has correctly convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 325 read with Section 34 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 14. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year 2009 and both the appeals are pending since 2012.It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the appeals, the appellant- Meghnath Sahu in CRA No. 37 of 2012 has passed away and his legal representatives were brought on record to contest the appeal on his behalf, he being a government servant and appellants/accused in CRA 10 No. 14 of 2012 are now aged more than 35 years; maximum jail sentence awarded to them is RI for 06 months under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC, out of which, as stated by learned counsel they had already remained in jail for about 02 days and are facing the lis since 2012 and looking to the present age of the appellants as also considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against them, no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The sentence of the deceased appellant- Meghnath Sahu, is deemed to have been undergone for the period already served. 15. Ex consequenti, the appeals are partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants/accused under the aforementioned sections is affirmed and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 16. It is stated that the deceased/appellant- Meghnath Sahu in CRA No. 37 of 2012 was a government servant. His job and service career shall not be affected in any manner by virtue of this judgment. 17. The appellants in CRA No. 14 of 2012 are reported to be on bail. However, 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 with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned 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 11 appellants on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 18. 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/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL