Chattisgarh High Court
Reludas And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 July, 2024
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:23334
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 876 of 2013
1. Reludas S/o Mansingh Satnami Aged About 55 Years,
Occupation Agriculture.
2. Vijay Kumar S/o Shivnandan Aged About 27 Years, Occupation-
Agriculture.
Both are R/o Village Lohdangiya, PS -Nandghat, Civil Distt. Durg
and Rev. Distt. Bemetara, C.G.
3. (Deleted) Shivnandan As Per Honble Court Order Dated.
26/04/2024.
---- Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO, PS- Nandghat, Civil
Distt. Durg, Rev. Distt. Bemetara C.G.
---- Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Advocate For the State : Mr. GL Uikey, PL.
For the Complainant : Mr. R.K. Thakur, Advocate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 02.07.2024
1. Vide order dated 26.04.2024, appeal has been abated on behalf of accused/appellant No.3 as he died on 26.09.2019.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2013, passed in S.T. No.64/2003 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, (CG), convicted the accused/ appellants under Sections 148, 458, 307/149 & 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo maximum RI Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23334 2 for 07 - 07 years with fine of Rs.3,000/-.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that complainant (Manju Ratnakar) lodged report to the concerned Police Station mentioning therein that on 31.08.2002 she and her husband Rohit Ratnakar were sleeping in their house. At night about 01:00 O'clock, accused/appellants alongwith other co-accused persons armed with deadly weapons entered into their house, started abusing the Rohit by his caste and, thereafter, assaulted him by means of stick, chain, rod and sharp edged weapon. When she (Manju) tried to intervene, she was also assaulted by them. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the appellants for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 450 & 307 of IPC.
4. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed against the appellants for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 307, 307/149, 307, 458 & 459 of the IPC.
5. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 13 witnesses. Statement of the appellants (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all incriminating evidence appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, they examined two witnesses in their defence.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23334 3 judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. He submits that incident had taken place on 31.08.2002, there was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, it was first offence of appellants and thereafter they had not indulged themselves in any other criminal activity. At the time of incident, appellant No.1 was aged about 48 whereas appellant No.2 was 20 years and at present appellant No.1 is aged about 70 years and appellant No.2 is 42 years and, therefore, no purpose would be served by again sending them jail after a lapse of about 22 years.
During pendency of this appeal, appellants and complainant/injured (Rohit Ratnakar & Manju Ratnakar) have entered into compromise and in this regard compromise application was filed before Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court where statements of both parties have been recorded. Appellant No.1 has served more than 3 years of jail sentence whereas appellant No.2 has served about 1 year of jail sentence. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23334 4
8. Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the Complainant also endorse the said fact that the appellants and complainant/injured have entered into a compromise.
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 appellants have not challenged conviction of appellants and restricted his 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. 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 appellants 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 appellants are guilty for the aforementioned offence (described in Para-1 of this judgment).
12. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the fact that incident took place in the year 2002 i.e. 22 years have elapsed, at the time of incident appellant No.1 was aged about 48 whereas appellant No.2 was 20 years and at present appellant No.1 is aged about 70 years and appellant No.2 is 42 years, Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23334 5 further considering that both the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and developed cordial relationship with each other, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending appellants to jail at this point of time for undergoing remaining period of sentence and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of appellant under Sections 148, 458, 307/149 & 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code are hereby affirmed. Sentences imposed upon appellants under aforementioned Sections are hereby modified and reduced to the period already undergone by appellants.
14. Appellants are reported to be on bail, hence, their bail bonds stand cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged.
15. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J/-