Chattisgarh High Court
Uttam Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 August, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 343 of 2010
Uttam Kumar S/o Sunil Kumar Suryawanshi, Caste Satnami,
aged about 24 years, R/o Nirmla Sector(Block), 50-2-D-Type
Rajhara, P.S.-Rajhara, Distt.- Durg(C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Rajhara, District Durg (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Appellant :Mr. Aman Kesharwani and Mr. Yashpal
Singh, Advocates.
For State/Respondent :Mr. Akash Pandey, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
12.08.2021
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
30.04.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No.20/2009 by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Balod, Distt.
Durg(C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Sections 324 & 452 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.
1,000/- and RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-
respectively, with default stipulations. Both the jail sentences
to be run concurrently.
2. According to the case of prosecution, before 15 days of
lodging FIR, the Appellant proposed victim Anita Yadav(PW-
9), she refused his proposal and complained about the said
proposal to parents of the Appellant. Allegedly, on the date of
incident i.e. 20.05.2009, when the victim was in the house of
his coach Sudarshan Kumar Singh (PW-11), the Appellant
came their and called the victim outside the house and when
she denied, he entered in the house and assaulted her with
the help of knife due to which she sustained injuries. The
above incident was witnessed by Umeshwari (PW-10) and
Rajkumari(PW-1). Thereafter, the matter was reported by
victim Anita Yadav. On the basis of her report, offence has
been registered against the Appellant. Later on statements of
the complainant and witnesses recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
filed by the Police. Trial Court framed the charges against the
Appellant. To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question, the
prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. In the
statement of the Appellant recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C, he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in
the matter, however, no defence witness was examined by
the Appellant.
3. After completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced
the Appellant as mentioned in Para 01 of this judgment.
Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submit that they
do not want to press this appeal on merits and confine their
arguments to the sentence part only. They further submit that
the Appellant has already undergone about 1 year in jail, he
has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the lis since
2009. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to him may be
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal
and supported the impugned judgment.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and perused the record minutely.
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly considering the fact that the Appellant has already
undergone about 1 year in jail, he has no criminal antecedent
and he is facing the lis since 2009. I am of the view that the
ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction
imposed upon the Appellant, the jail sentence awarded to him
is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
8. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of
the Appellant under Sections 324 & 452 of the IPC is affirmed
and against the conviction, he is sentenced to the period
already undergone by him. The fine sentences for the above
offence is also affirmed.
9. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of
this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Shubham
