Kheer Sagar Padihari vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3663 Chatt

                                                                    NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           CRR No. 349 of 2014

      Kheer Sagar Padihari, S/o Digamber aged about 24 Years, R/o
        Village Godhi, Teh. Tamnar, Civil and Rev. Distt. Raigarh
        Chhattisgarh.

                                                            ---- Applicant

                                  Versus

      State Of Chhattisgarh Through Distt. Magistrate Raigarh,
        Chhattisgarh.

                                                        ---- Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board

13.12.2021

1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated

29.03.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge

(FTC), Raigarh (C.G.) in Crime No. 141/2014 whereby

Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of conviction hold

by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda, District

Raigarh (C.G.) passed in Criminal Appeal No. 384/2012 dated

12.02.2014.

2. According to the case of prosecution on 12.06.2012,

complainant Raghunath Choudhary was going towards the

shop of one Krishna, at that time applicant/accused came

behind him and committed marpeet with him with the help of

his sleeper due to which, the complainant sustained injuries

on his body. The matter was reported by the complainant.

3. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been

filed before the learned JMFC. Learned JMFC vide judgment

dated 12.02.2014, convicted the applicant/accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 294 & 323 of the IPC and

sentenced him with fine of Rs. 300 & 700 respectively, with

default stipulations.

4. Against the said judgment of learned JMFC, a criminal appeal

has been preferred by the applicant/accused vide impugned

judgment dated 29.03.2014. The Appellate Court partly

allowed the appeal and acquitted the applicant/accused for

the offence punishable under Section 294 of the IPC.

However, the Appellate Court affirmed the conviction of the

applicant/accused under Section 323 of the IPC and also

affirmed his sentence. Hence, this revision.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant

submits that there is no any independent witness in the

present case and statement of complainant Raghunath

Choudhary has not duly supported by any other witnesses,

therefore, findings of conviction under Section 323 of the IPC

by the Courts below are perverse.

6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the

arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellant

and supported the impugned judgment of the Court below.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

parties and perused the judgment of conviction and other

documents annexed with the case.

8. On perusal of evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is well

established that complainant Raghunath Choudhary was

assaulted by the applicant/accused with the help of sleeper,

due to that he sustained injuries on his cheek and testicles.

He was medically examined by Dr. Dharamsay Painkra (PW-

4) and his medical report also supported the case of

prosecution, therefore, findings in this regard by both the

Courts below are based upon the evidence adduced by the

prosecution.

9. I do not found any merit in this revision. Accordingly, the same

is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham