Rohit Kumar Dewangan @ Kalki vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1474 Chatt

                                         1

                                                                           NAFR

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2017

   • Rohit Kumar Dewangan @ Kalki, S/o Late Kanshiram Dewangan, Aged
        About 22 Years, R/o Shivpuri, Ward No. 15, Jamul, Police Station Jamul,
        District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                    ---- Appellant

                                       Versus

   • State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station Jamul, District Durg,
        Chhattisgarh.

                                                                ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava and Mr. Tarun Dansena Advocates.

For Respondent : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Order on Board 30/07/2021

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

24/03/2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 15/2016 by the Sessions

Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been

convicted under Sections 450 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-; and

R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.200/- respectively with default

stipulation.

2. According to case of the prosecution, at the relevant time,

victim/complainant Rekhram Banchhor was the Chairman of Nagar

Palika Parishad, Jamul. On 19.10.2015, at about 3:00 PM, when he

was seating in his chamber alongwith one Nilkanth Nirmalkar, present

appellant entered in his chamber and inquired about

construction/installation of 'sulabh nal'. Then victim/complainant

advised the appellant to meet one Sonu Dewangan and complete the

formalities but the appellant informed him that he has already

constructed the 'sulabh', on that the victim/complainant directed the

appellant to fill the form and then the formalities will be over.

Thereafter, the appellant came out from the chamber and after

sometime in a very agitated manner entered again in the chamber with

a prickly/sharp curve object and with intention to kill the victim, started

assaulting him. That, on shouting, Nilkanth, driver Sanjay Sahu and

other employee caught hold the appellant. Thereafter, victim was

admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, matter was reported. Statement of

the victim and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the

Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. Trial

Court framed the charges. To prove the guilt of the accused/appellant,

prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. No defence

witness has been examined. Statement of the appellant under Section

313 of the Cr.P.C has been recorded, wherein he has pleaded

innocence and false implication in the matter.

3. After trial, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as

mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

4. Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that she does not want to press this appeal on merits and

confines her argument to the sentence part only. She further submits

that the appellant has undergone about 6 years out of total jail

sentence of 7 years, he has no criminal antecedent and he is facing

the lis since 2015, therefore, she prays that the jail sentence awarded

to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by

him.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the

impugned judgment and submits that the sentence awarded by the

trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and

perused the record minutely.

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

particularly considering that out of total jail sentence of 7 years, the

appellant has undergone about 6 years, he is facing the lis since 2015

and there is no criminal antecedent against him, I am of the view that

the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction

imposed upon the appellant, the jail sentenced awarded to him is

reduced to the period already undergone by him.

8. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the

appellant under the aforementioned Section is affirmed and he is

sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The fine sentence

is affirmed.

9. 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 Prakash