Chhotelal And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5073 Chatt

                                                             Page 1 of 5



                                                                 NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                     CRR No. 365 of 2010

1.

Chhotelal, S/o- Rameshwar, Aged about- 56 years, R/o- Patharala, Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).

2. Bisambhar, S/o Gourango, Aged about- 50 years, R/o- Boidih, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).

3. Ranjit, S/o Naro Pradhan, Aged about- 49 years, R/o- Jagdishpur, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).

4. Chamru Vishal, S/o- Sahdev, Aged about- 50 years, R/o- Narsingpur, Police Station- Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).

---- Applicants

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through; the District Magistrate, Mahasamund (C.G.).

2. Brajsen Sahu, S/o- Mayadhar Sahu, Aged about- 60 years, R/o- Bhikhapali, P.S. Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).

---- Non-Applicants

CRR No. 368 of 2010

1. Chandramani Pradhan, S/o- Mahadev Pradhan, Aged about 65 years, R/o- Saraipali, Dist- Mahasamund (C.G.).

2. Laxminarayan, S/o- Rameshwar Sahu, Aged about- 63 years, R/ o- Salhetarai, Basna, Dist- Mahasamund (C.G.).

3. Dolamani, S/o- Biharilal Sahu, Aged about- 55 years, R/o- Patharala, Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).

4. Jejeram, S/o- Kandarp Sau, Aged about- 52 years, R/o- Jhagarandih, P.S. Basna, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.).

5. Barsingo @ Narsing, S/o- Gourango, Aged about- 53 years, R/o- Tala, Basna, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.).

6. Mahadev, S/o- Shri Loknath, Aged about- 55 years, R/o- Baranidadar, P.S. Basna, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.).

7. Udekar, S/o- Shrimadhu, Aged about- 55 years,

8. Chhabilal, s/o- Bhola, Aged about- 55 years,

Both Applicant Nos. 7 & 8 are R/o- Bhikhapali, P.S. Basna, Dist.- Mahasamund (C.G.).

9. Shatruhan, S/o- Shri Uderam, Aged about- 56 years, R/o Jagdishpur, P.S. Basna, District- Mahasamund (C.G.).

10. Shambhukar, s/o- Sudarshan, Aged about- 55 years, R/o- Jhagarandih, P.S. Basna, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.).

11. Bajal Pradhan, S/o- Chetan, Aged about- 65 years, R/o- Jabalpur, P.S. Basna, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.).

12. Haricharan, S/o- Munshiram Pradhan, Aged about- 45 years, R/o. Charbhatha, P.S. Basna, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.).

13. Brijmohan, S/o- Damodar Pradhan, Aged about- 64 years, R/ o- Dumarpali, P.S. Basna, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.). ---- Applicant

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through; the District Magistrate, Mahasamund (C.G.)

2. Brajsen Sahu, S/o. Mayadhar Sahu, Aged about-60 years, R/o- Bhikhapali, P.S. Basna, Dist.- Mahasamund (C.G.).

---- Non-Applicants

For Applicants (CRR No. 365 of 2010) :Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate

For Applicants (CRR No. 368 of 2010) :Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate

For Non-Applicant No.1/State :Shri Roshan Dubey, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.08.2022

1. None for the Non-Applicant No.2 though served even in the

second round.

2. As both these cases are arising out of same Criminal Case

Number i.e. 220/2009 in which 18 accused were prosecuted on

complaint filed by Bajrasen Sahu under Section 200 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'CrPC'). The applicants of

both the cases who were prosecuted for the offences punishable

under Sections 384, 500 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. Criminal Revision No. 365 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of

four accused persons whereas Criminal Revision No. 368 of

2010 has been filed on behalf of 13 accused persons.

4. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithora, Mahasamund (C.G.)

convicted the applicants of both the cases for the offence

punishable under Section 384 of IPC and sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment for 06-06 months and fine of Rs. 500-500/-

to each of the applicants and in default in payment of fine further

simple imprisonment for 15-15 days. For the offence punishable

under Section 500 read with Section 34 of IPC, the applicants

were convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500-500/- and in

default of payment of fine amount further simple imprisonment

for 15-15 days.

5. The applicants of both the cases preferred the appeal before the

First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund (C.G.) bearing

Criminal Appeal No. 156/2009 vide judgment dated 19.07.2010,

the appellate Court acquitted the appellants for the offence

punishable under Section 500/34 of IPC and modified the

sentence awarded under Section 384 of IPC from simple

imprisonment of 6-6 months to fine of Rs. 5,000-5,000/- to each

of the applicants and the same has been challenged by the

applicants by filing Criminal Revision under Section 397 read

with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. before this Court.

6. The facts of this case are like that the complainant Brajsen Sahu

filed a complain under Section 200 of CrPC making allegations

that the complainant himself was prosecuted for the offence

punishable under Section 376 of IPC and later on, he was

acquitted from the said charges. Thereafter money was

demanded from him by the present applicants and when he

refused to pay the money, he was withdrawn from the society.

The complaint case was registered as Criminal Case No.

220/2009. The complainant examined himself as PW/1-

Bajrasen, PW/2 Chandramani Pradhan. The applicants abjured

the charges and learned Trial Court after appreciating the

evidence and material on record, convicted the applicants as

mentioned in the para-2 of this order.

7. That the applicants challenged the judgment passed by the

Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 27.11.2009 in Criminal

Case No. 220/2009 before the First Additional Sessions Judge,

Mahasamund and vide judgment dated 19.07.2010, the

applicants were acquitted from the charge under Section 500 of

IPC and sentence recorded under Section 384/34 of IPC was

modified and only fine of Rs. 5,000-5,000/- was imposed upon

each of the applicants.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that offence under

Section 384 of IPC is not made out against the present

applicants because at the time of incident, there were 200-300

persons present when money was demanded from the

complainant and the complainant was withdrawn from the

society and intentionally applicants were prosecuted by the

complainant. He further submits that amount demanded by

applicants was not realized. The applicants are poor persons

and the amount of fine is at the higher side and they are unable

to pay the fine amount.

9. Per contra, the counsel for the State opposes the argument

advanced by the counsel for the applicants.

10. From the perusal of the record and judgments passed by the

Courts below, it is reflected that learned Courts below taking

into consideration the nature of offence committed by the

applicants, the applicants have been held guilty for the offence

punishable under Section 384 of 34 of IPC., it is evident from

records that the applicants took a decision to boycott the non-

applicant No.2 for having committed rape of his sister-in-law and

when the non-applicant No.2 requested to withdraw the boycott,

the applicants demanded Rs. 13,500/-, therefore, the lower

appellate Court imposed punishment of fine only, which cannot

be termed too harsh. There is concurrent finding with regard to

conviction of the applicants. Therefore, in opinion of this Court,

the Court below has not acted contrary to the material available

on record. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in both the cases

and the same are liable to be dismissed and accordingly

dismissed.

11. The applicants are directed to deposit the fine amount within

period of three months, if the same has not been deposited

earlier before the trial Court. Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim