Saalam Mohammed @ Dabbu And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1322 Chatt

                                                                  NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           CRA No. 895 of 2012

     1. Saalam Mohammed @ Dabbu S/o Gul Mohammed Aged About
        26 Years R/o Kadambari Nagar, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Durg C.G.

     2. Sheikh Ibrahim @ Dau S/o Sheikh Ramzan Aged About 21 Years
        R/o Patankar Colony Kundrapara, Durg C.G.

                                                         ---- Appellants

                                  Versus

      State Of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. Chawni, Durg C.G.

                                                       ---- Respondent

For Appellants :Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate. For State/Respondent :Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Judgment on Board

23.07.2021

1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that

Appellant No. 1 Saalam Mohammed @ Dabbu has been

released from jail after completion of entire jail sentence

imposed upon him by the Trial Court, therefore, he does not

want to press the appeal with regard to Appellant No. 1

namely Saalam Mohammed @ Dabbu.

2. In view of the above submission, the appeal is dismissed as

not pressed with regard to Appellant No. 1 namely Saalam

Mohammed @ Dabbu.

3. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

31.07.2012 passed in Session Trial No.216/2011 by the

learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, Distt. Durg

(C.G.) wherein, Appellant No. 2 has been convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and

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

1,000/-, with default stipulation.

4. According to the case of prosecution, deceased Shrawan

Kumar lodged a report in concerned Police Station to the

effect that on 01.05.2011 at around 9 PM, Appellant No. 1

was quarreling with his brother Durga Prasad @ Shyamlal,

Jamuna and Bantu. Deceased Shrawan Kumar along with her

mother and brother Ved Prakash tried to pacify them, the

accused persons misbehaved with them and hit the deceased

with hand and fist due to that the deceased sustained injuries

on his head and during course of treatment on 02.05.2011,

Shrawan Kumar has died. On the basis of said report, offence

has been registered. Later on statements of witnesses

recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of

investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Police. Trial Court

framed the charges. To robe Appellant 2 in the crime-in-

question, the prosecution has examined as many as 15

witnesses. In the statement of Appellant No. 2 recorded under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he has pleaded his innocence and

false implication in the matter, however, no defence witness was examined by Appellant No. 2. After completion of trial, the

Trial Court convicted and sentenced Appellant No. 2 as

mentioned in Para 03 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for Appellant No. 2 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 the main allegations are against Appellant No. 1.

Appellant No. 2 has already undergone about 8 months out of

2 years of jail sentence, he has no criminal antecedent and he

is facing the lis from 2011. Therefore, the jail sentence

awarded to him may be reduced to the period already

undergone by him.

6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal

and supported the impugned judgment.

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

parties and perused the record minutely.

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

particularly considering the fact that Appellant No. 2 has

already undergone about 8 months out of 2 years of jail

sentence, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing the

lis from 2011. I am of the view that the ends of justice would

be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon

Appellant No. 2, the jail sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

9. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed with regard to

Appellant No. 2. The conviction of Appellant No. 2 under

Section 324 of the IPC is affirmed and against the conviction

he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The

fine sentence for the above offence is also affirmed.

10. 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 Shubham