Jaini @ Dilip Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1015 Chatt

                                                                    NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        Order reserved on 26.03.2021
                        Order pronounced on 09.07.2021
                         CRR No. 428 of 2010
      Jaini @ Dilip Kumar, S/o Bharat Ghasiya, aged about 19 years, R/o
       Cooperative Line Charcha, PS Charcha Colliery, Korea (CG)
                                                               ---- Applicant.
                                    Versus
      State Of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, District Korea
       (CG)                                              ---Respondent.

With CRR No. 429 of 2010

1. Raju @ Rajesh Kumar, S/o Jamuna Prasad Sarthi, aged about 22 years, R/o Village Nagpur, PS Charcha, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (CG)

2. Pintu @ Jaikumar, S/o Baldev Sarthi, R/o Village Nagar, PS Charcha, District Korea --- Applicants.

Versus  State Of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, District Korea (CG) --Respondent.

For Applicants : Mr. D.N. Shukla, Senior Adv. with Mr. Arijit Tiwari & Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocates.

For respondent/State : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, PL.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor

C.A.V. Order Since both these revisions arise out of the same judgment dated

10.08.2010 passed by the lower appellate Court, they are being disposed

of by this common order.

2. From the FIR (Ex.P-1), the statements of the witnesses recorded

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as also the charge-sheet, it is manifest that on

16.09.2007 at about 12 midnight when the prosecutrix was sleeping, the

accused/applicants along with one Santosh (already acquitted by learned

trial Court) had entered in the house of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and asked

her as to whom had she given shelter in her house. They also subjected

her to beating and while leaving the house they bolted the door from outside. Subsequently, the Panch of the ward along with his brother

Ramkrishna came there and unlocked her house. This led to the

registration of offence under Sections 452, 342, 323 & 506/34 IPC

followed by filing of charge under the same sections.

3. Learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 31.12.2008 acquitted

accused Santosh of all the charges levelled against him but convicted the

accused/applicants herein under Sections 452 and 342 IPC and

sentenced each of them to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.1000/-

under Section 452 IPC and RI for 6 years under Section 342 IPC, plus

default stipulation. Learned lower appellate Court also approved the

judgment of learned Magistrate in its entirety. Hence these revisions.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. The evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1) goes to show that on the

date of incident at about 12 midnight when she was sleeping alone in her

house, the accused/applicants along with one Santosh (acquitted by the

learned Magistrate) had entered in her house and subjected her to

beating. Not only this, while leaving the house the accused/applicants had

also put lock on the exit door from outside, which was opened after the

arrival of Ward Panch accompanied by one Ramkrishna, as is clear from

the evidence of Bhaiyalal (PW-2). Evidence of PW-2 also goes to show

that on the same night the accused/applicants had gone to his house also

and complained about his sister (the prosecutrix) that she was not giving

liquor to them. On this, PW-2 however, did not pay any heed on all that

and left the same to be a matter between them and the prosecutrix.

Though the other witnesses have been declared hostile and there are

minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 yet

on material particulars that the accused/applicants had gone to the house

of the prosecutrix in the midnight and had wrongfully confined her in her

own house by bolting the door from outside, is not in dispute. The overall evidence speaks volumes about the act of the accused/applicants in

barging into the house of prosecutrix in the midnight after preparing to

cause hurt, the offence under Section 452 i.e. for committing the house

trespass and under Section 342 for wrongfully confining her are clearly

made out. There is no reason for the prosecutrix to portray a false story

against accused/applicants so as to be falsely implicated by prosecution

witnesses.

6. The conviction of the accused/applicants under Sections 452 and

342 IPC is thus fully based on the material collected by the prosecution

and therefore, this Court does not find any error to interfere with the same.

Their conviction is accordingly maintained.

7. As regards sentence, keeping in mind the fact that the incident had

taken place about 14 years back and that the accused/applicants have

already suffered a lot by facing a long drawn prosecution and also by

remaining inside for a fortnight, in the considered opinion of this Court the

interest of justice would be served if the sentence imposed on them is

reduced to the period already undergone. Order accordingly.

8. Revisions are thus allowed in part.

Sd/-

(Vimla Singh Kapoor)

Judge Jyotishi/Ajay