Shiv Bagas vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1070 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                          NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       Criminal Revision No. 414 of 2010

      Shiv Bagas, S/o Bhuneshwar Dangchagha, aged about 40 years, R/o
      Goverdhan Nagar, Ward No. 13, Police Station Nevra, District Raipur
      (C.G.)

                                                                   ---- Applicant

                                    Versus

      State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Police Station Nevra, District Raipur
      (C.G.)

                                                              ----Non-applicant



For Applicant          :    Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate
For Non-applicant       :   Mr. Praveen Shrivastava, P.L.


                    Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

                               Order On Board
13.07.2021

(1) Proceedings of the matter have been taken-up through Video

Conferencing.

(2) Present revision is directed against the impugned judgment dated

6.8.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Raipur in

Criminal Appeal No. 6/2010 affirming the order dated 3.2.2010 passed by

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tilda in Criminal Case No. 43/2009 convicting

the applicant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian

Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months

with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple

imprisonment of one month.

(3) Brief facts of the case are that on 18.02.2009 at about 1.45 P.M.

complainant Raju Ahuja had gone to Budhwari Bazar, Nevra for selling of

dressed pour meant, at that time, applicant also came there for selling of dressed

pour meat. They were having the shop / place in the same market and they were

involved in the same business. It is alleged that applicant started abusing the

complainant by filthy language as soon as he reached there because according

to him, the place on which the complaint was holding his business belonged to

the applicant and in furtherance of that the applicant assaulted the complainant

by means of Kattal [ Article used for dressing of pour meat], as a result of which

complainant sustained multiple injuries in his head, wrist and severe bleeding.

Based on which, complainant lodge FIR (Ex.P-1) against the applicant/accused

for commission of offence under Sections 294, 323 & 506-B of the Indian Penal

Code. After filing of charge sheet, the trial Magistrate framed the charge under

Section 324, 294, 506 (part-II) of the IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

(4) So as to hold the applicant/accused guilty, the prosecution has examined

6 witnesses. Statement of the applicant/accused was also recorded under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against

him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

(5) Vide judgment dated 3.2.2010, learned Magistrate has acquitted the

applicant/accused of the offence under Section 294 & 506(B) of the IPC and

Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act whereas convicted the applicant for the offence

punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to

undergo simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of

payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month.

(6) In an appeal preferred by the applicant/accused, order of the Magistrate

has been affirmed by the appellate Court. Hence this Criminal Revision.

(7) Counsel for the applicant/accused submits that he is not pressing this

appeal as regards conviction part of the judgment impugned and would confine

his argument to the sentence part of the same only. According to him, the

applicant has already remained in jail for about 1 month and looking to the first

offence which has been committed by him, he may be sentenced to the period

already undergone by him. To this submission of the counsel for the appellant,

state counsel has no objection.

(8) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the

material available on record including judgment impugned with utmost

circumspection.

(9) Although learned counsel for the applicant is pressing only the conviction

part of the impugned judgment despite that if merits of the judgment is seen, then

Complainant - Raju (PW-1) has clearly stated in his evidence that on the date of

incident, at Budhwari Bazar, Nevra applicant assaulted the complainant by

means of Kattal, as a result of which he sustained cut injuries on his head and

blood was oozing out from there.

(10) Lata (PW-2),- wife of complainant - Raju, who was also present at the

time of incident, has fully supported the evidence of complainant.

(11) Sajesh (PW-5), who is said to be the eye witness to the incident, has also

supported the evidence of complainant. The defence has cross-examined this

witness in detail but has not been able to elicit anything in his cross-examination

to discard his testimony.

(12) Dr. G.R. Agrawal (PW-3), who was medically examined complainant -

Raju on 18.2.2009 also stated that on being medical examination, he found one

incised wound over scalp in the size of 15 c.m.; one abrasion on his left wrist

and also one abrasion on his nose. He has also opined that afore-states injuries

were caused by hard and sharp object. His statement is supported by medical

report (Ex.P-3) prepared by him. There is nothing in his cross-examination, on

the basis of which his above evidence may be disbelieved.

(13) Perusal of afore-stated evidence, it is proved that on the date of incident,

applicant assaulted the complainant by means of sharp edged object and caused

multiple injuries to the complainant. According to the Dr. G.R. Agrawal (PW-3),

the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature.

(14) Looking to the aforesaid evidence and material available on record, I find

that the trial Magistrate as well as First Appellate Court have rightly held guilty

under Section 324 IPC to the appellant and keeping in view of the fact that the

incident had taken place in the year 2009 and thereby more than 12 years have

rolled by since then, the conviction part of the judgment impugned is hereby

maintained.

(15) So far as sentence part of the impugned judgment is concerned, as per

record of the court below, the applicant has remained in judicial custody from

19.02.2009 to 3.2.009 and after dismissal of appeal i.e. from 6.8.2010 to

19.8.2010 [Bail was granted to the applicant by this Court on 19.8.2010] i.e. the

appellant has remained in jail about one month. Furthermore, nothing has been

mentioned in record of the courts below with regard to previous criminal

antecedents of the applicant. Thus, the applicant is sentenced to the period

already undergone by him. However, fine sentence, as imposed upon the

applicant, is maintained. Appellant is stated to have deposited the fine of

Rs.500/- imposed by the court below. Thus, sentence imposed upon the

applicant is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.

(16) Accordingly, the criminal revision is partly allowed.

Sd/-

(N.K. Chandravanshi) Judge

D/-