Shani Nayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2003 Chatt

                                                                            NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2018

   • Shani Nayak, S/o Hariram Nayak, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Pipar Sakti,
     Police Station Akaltara, Janjgir Champa, Presently R/o Khairkhundi,
     Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                    ---- Appellant

                                       Versus

   • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
     Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                 ---- Respondent

       For Appellant            :      Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate.
       For State/Respondent     :      Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Govt. Advocate.




                Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
                              Judgment on Board


25/08/2021

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated

23/12/2017 passed in S.T. No.88/2017 by the 5 th Additional Sessions

Judge, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, (C.G.) wherein appellant has been

convicted and sentenced as under :

Conviction Sentence

U/s 307 of the I.P.C. R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-

with default stipulations.

U/s 294 of the I.P.C. R.I. for 2 months and fine of Rs.500/-

with default stipulations.

U/s 506 of the I.P.C. R.I. for 1 year and fine amount of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.

All sentences to run concurrently.

2. According to case of the prosecution, on 01.02.2017 at about 8:50

A.M., appellant was abusing in front of house of Maniram (PW-3) in

filthy language. When Maniram tried to stop the appellant, then

appellant lace with lathi, threatened him and assaulted him in his head

and other parts of the body due to which Maniram sustained injuries on

his head and other parts of the body. Thereafter, victim Maniram was

taken to the hospital for treatment. Matter was reported by one Ajay

Nayak and on the basis of the said, offence has been registered.

Statements of the victim and other witnesses were recorded under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, a charge-

sheet was filed. Trial Court framed charges. To prove the guilt of the

accused/appellant, prosecution has examined as many as 12

witnesses. No defence witness has been examined. Statement of

appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein

accused/appellant has pleaded innocence and false implication in the

matter.

3. After completion of trial, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced

the appellant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence,

this appeal.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that

appellant is innocent and is falsely implicated in the present case. She

further submits that trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant without there being sufficient and clinching evidence against him.

There are material contradictions and omissions occurred in the

statements of the witnesses and the said was not appreciated by the

trial Court. Therefore, conviction of the appellant is not sustainable.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supports the

impugned judgment and submits that sentence awarded by the trial

Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the

statement of witnesses and other annexed documents available on

record minutely.

7. With regard to the alleged incident, victim Maniram Nayak (PW-3) in

his Court statement has deposed that on the date of incident, appellant

came in front of his house and started abusing in filthy language.

When he tried to stop, then appellant assaulted him with lathi in his

head due to which he sustained injuries and fall on the ground.

Statement of Maniram Nayak (PW-3) was duly corroborated by Savita

Bai (PW-1) who is daughter of Maniram, Tijobai (PW-4) i.e. wife of

Maniram, Shanti Bai (PW-5) and Ku. Sarita Nayak (PW-6). The above

witnesses remained firm during their cross-examination. Medical report

of the victim Maniram also corroborates the case of the prosecution.

Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, in my

considered view, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.

Thus, conviction is affirmed.

8. With regard to the sentence of the appellant, considering the facts that

appellant is the son-in-law of the victim Maniram (PW-3), he is in jail since 12.07.2017, he is facing the lis since 2017 and there is no

criminal antecedent against him, 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 under Section 307 of

the I.P.C. is reduced from seven years to five years. The fine sentence

is affirmed and in default of payment of fine, appellant is liable to

undergo further R.I. for six months.

9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated

above. The fine sentence of above offences are affirmed.

10. 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 Prakash