Chain Kumar Aghariya And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3427 Chatt

                                          1

                                                                                   NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                      Criminal Appeal No. 1135 of 2013

   1. Chain Kumar Aghariya, S/o Dokri Aghariya Aged About 47 Years, (wrongly
      mentioned as 745 years in the impugned judgment) R/o Village
      Taraideepa, P.S. Punjipathra, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

   2. Padmani @ Nawadhin Aghariya, W/o Chain Kumar, Aged About 45 Years,
      R/o Village Taraideepa, P.S. Punjipathra, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                         ---- Appellants

                                        Versus

   • State of Chhattisgarh Through               P.S.   Punjipathra,    Distt.   Raigarh,
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                                       ---- Respondent


For Appellant            :     Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of Shri
                               Ashish Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent           :     Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, P.L.


                 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

                                Order on Board
01/12/2021

   1.    This is an admitted appeal. With the consent of both the parties, the

         matter is heard finally.


   2.    Vide PUD dated 01.11.2021 received from the First Additional

         Sessions Judge, Raigarh, (C.G.), it has been informed that appellant

         No.1/Chain Kumar has died on 08.03.2021. In this regard, a death

         certificate is also annexed.


   3.    Since, appellant No.1/Chain Kumar Aghariya has already died, the

         case is abated against him.
                                      2

4.   This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

     07/11/2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 141/2012 by the First

     Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, (C.G.), whereby the appellants

     have been convicted under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code

     and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.

     2,000/- with default stipulation.


5.   Facts

of the case are that on 16/05/2012 at about 8-9:00 PM, the

complainant Kartik Ram Rathiya (PW-2) was standing near his house

and demanding his 'Basula' from the appellant. Allegedly, appellants

abusing and threatened the complainant and assaulted him with the

help of club and axe, due to which he sustained injuries on his head

and other parts of the body. Thereafter matter was reported.

Statement of Injured as well as other witnesses were recorded under

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

sheet was filed under Sections 294, 307/34, 506 of the I.P.C. Trial

Court framed the charges. As many as 8 prosecution witnesses have

been examined. No defence witness has been examined. Statement of

the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C has been recorded,

wherein they have pleaded innocence and false implication in the

matter.

6. After trial, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the Appellants

as mentioned in paragraph four of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for appellant No.2/ Padmani @ Nawadhin

Aghariya submits that he does not want to press this appeal on merits

and confines his argument to the sentence part only. He further

submits that appellant No.2 is an old lady aged about 55-60 years, she

has undergone about 17 months out of total jail sentence of 2 years,

she has no criminal antecedents and she is facing the lis since 2012,

therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to appellant No.2

may be reduced to the period already undergone by her.

8. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the

impugned judgment and submits that the sentence awarded by the

trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

9. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and

perused the record minutely.

10. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,

particularly considering that out of total jail sentence of 2 years, the

appellant No.2/Padmani @ Nawadhin Aghariya has undergone about

17 months, she is facing the lis since 2012 and there is no criminal

antecedent against her, I am of the view that the ends of justice would

be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the appellant

No.2, the jail sentence awarded to her is reduced to the period already

undergone by her.

11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the

appellant No.2 under the aforementioned section is affirmed and she is

sentenced to the period already undergone by her. The fine sentence

is affirmed.

12. 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