Chattisgarh High Court
Banafer Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 July, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 769 of 2008
• Banafer Yadav, S/o. Chintaram Yadav, Aged about 35 years, R/o.
Village-Janta, Police Station Saja, District Durg (CG)
---- Appellant
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Saja, District Durg (CG)
•
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent /State : Shri Sameer Sharma, Dy.GA
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order On Board By Virtual Hearing
12/07/2021
This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 31.07.2008
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara district
Durg (CG) in S.T. No. 04/2007 convicting the accused/appellant under
Section 325 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for two years with
default stipulation.
2. As per prosecution case, on 22.10.2006, at about 3.00 p.m.,
when she was going to her son-in-law's house for taking meals on the
occasion of Deepavali, the accused/appellant along with his
companions were intoxicated and celebrating the folk dance ( Raut
Naacha), after seeing her near the house of one Lallu Pandey, abused
her in filthy language, threatened to kill and assaulted on her head with
club. She was taken to Govt. Hospital but as there was no doctor, she
was taken to private hospital and thereafter at about 4.00 p.m., report
was lodged against the appellant. However, looking to the serious
condition of the victim, she was shifted to district hospital at Durg.
During treatment he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. After
investigation, charge sheet was filed against him under Section 307
IPC.
3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses.
Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges
levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in
the case.
4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court by judgment impugned,
considering the entire evidence on record, by acquitting the appellant under
Section 307 of IPC altered his conviction under Section 325 IPC and
sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- .
Hence the present appeal.
5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the accused/appellant
has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He submits that
the incident took place about 16 years back, appellant has already
remained in jail for about 2 1/2 months and therefore his sentence be
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
6. On the other hand State counsel supports the impugned
judgment and submits that the conviction of the accused/appellant is in
accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
8. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on the date of
incident, accused/appellant was intoxicated, he abused and assaulted
with club causing injury to the victim with club as a result of which she
sustained lacerated wound on the head and contusions of hands and
legs. At the instance of injured, prompt FIR was registered. Moreover
the medical report also supports the prosecution case. The complicity
of the appellant in the commission of the offence has been duly
proved. It is apparent that the injuries sustained by the victim were
caused by the accused/appellant with club on her head.
9. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the victim,
offence under Section 325 IPC is made out against the appellant. Thus
looking to the act of appellant and the evidence adduced by the
prosecution, his conviction under Section 325 IPC appears to be
justified.
10. Thus, taking into considering the fact that the incident occurred
on account of he being intoxicated, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the fact that the
incident occurred in the year 2006, appellant by now must be a middle
aged person, he remained in jail for about 2 ½ months, I am of the
view that ends of justice would be served if the sentence imposed on
him is reduced to the period undergone by him. Consequently, the
appeal is partly allowed. Accused/appellant is reported to be on bail
and therefore no further order is required. His bail bond stands
discharged.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
suguna
