Chattisgarh High Court
Gadhu And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 September, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 369 of 2012
1. Gadhu, S/o Kanhaiya, aged about 50 years, Caste- Satnami
2. Sadaram, S/o Sewak Ram, aged about 45 years, Caste-
Satnami
Both are R/o Devarghata, Police Chowki- Hasaud, P.S.- Jaijaipur,
District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).
---- Applicants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Jaijaipur, District-
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).
---- Respondent
For Applicants : Mr. Aditya Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order On Board
21.09.2021
1. The present revision arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 02.06.2012 passed by learned
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 31/2011 whereby, the learned appellate
court has partly confirmed the conviction and sentence of the
accused/applicants as awarded by Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Jaijaipur, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) vide its judgment dated
24.01.2011 in Criminal Case No. 1675/2007 for the offence under
Section 323 of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for
four months and to pay Rs. 700/- with default stipulations.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.07.2007 at about 4:00 PM,
the complainant- Nehar Bai along with her husband Jogi Ram was in
the market. Deputy Sarpanch Atmaram, Gopal and other co-accused
persons were also there, Jogiram asked Atmaram to decide the dispute
of his land. Thereafter, the accused and Gopal abused him for deciding
the land dispute and also threatened them. Thereafter, accused
assaulted the complainant and her husband with rod and stick, due to
which, they sustained injuries. On this report, offence was registered
against the applicants. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet
was filed and charges were framed under Section 323/34 of IPC
against the present applicants by the trial Court.
3. So as to hold the accused/applicants guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 5 witnesses. Statement of the
accused/applicants were also recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges leveled against them and
pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.
4. After hearing the parties, vide judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 24.01.2011, learned Judicial Magistrate has
convicted and sentenced the applicants for the offence punishable
under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I.
for one year, with default stipulation. This order was appealed by the
applicants and in the appeal, learned appellate court affirmed the
conviction under Section 323 of IPC and reduced the sentence from 1
year to 4 months. Hence, the present revision.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including the impugned judgment.
6. Counsel for the applicants submits that he is not pressing the
revision so far as it relates to the conviction part of the judgment and
would confine his argument to the sentence part thereof only.
According to him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year
2007, and thereby more than 14 years have rolled by since then. The
applicants have already remained in jail for about one month, and no
useful purpose would be served in again sending them to jail,
therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the
sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already
undergone by them.
7. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to this
preposition.
8. Having gone through the material on record and the evidence of
the witnesses Dr. S. Kachhap (PW-1), Nehar Bai (PW-2), Jogiram (PW-
3), Atmaram (PW-4), K.L. Patel (PW-5) establishes the involvement of
the accused/applicants in the crime in question beyond reasonable
doubt. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by
appellate Court below as regards conviction of the applicants under
Sections 323/34 of IPC.
9. As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that incident had
taken place in the year 2007, and further that the applicants had
already remained in jail for about one month, therefore, their sentence
is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
10. In view of the above consideration, the revision is partly allowed.
While maintaining the conviction of the applicants, they are sentenced
to the period already undergone by them. The applicants are reported
to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
R/-
