Gurumej Singh @ Peji Bagga (Died) ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1158 Chatt

                                                                   NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                              CRA No. 785 of 2004

  Mangeshwar, Son of Ramcharan Gond, aged about 32 years, resident
  of village:Sureshpur, Police Station: Sitapur, Present resident: At
  Nanakshahi Dhaba Kena Para, Police Station: Jaynagar, Distt: Surguja
  (C.G.)

                                                            ---- Appellant

                                     Versus

  State Of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station: Jaynagar, Distt:
  Surguja (C.G.)

                                                          ---- Respondent

  For Appellant                     :Mr. AK Prasad, Advocate.
  For State/Respondent              :Mr. Himanshu Sharma, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board 04.03.2022

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

10.09.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.260/97 & Session

Trial No. 113/2000 by the learned Sessions Judge and

Special Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) wherein,

the Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 506 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced to

undergo RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, with

default stipulation.

2. According to the case of prosecution, on 03.08.1997, the

Appellant and other co-accused persons have reached in the

house of deceased Santhlal to search him because the

deceased had beaten to their servants. At that time, the

deceased was not present in his home, therefore, the

Appellant and other co-accused persons were returned to

their homes and on the same date at about 2 AM, they again

reached the house of deceased Santhlal and called him. It is

alleged that the Appellant and other co-accused persons

abused and threatened the deceased to cause death. Later

on, in the early morning, the deceased committed suicide by

hanging himself. Thereafter, the Morgue report was lodged

and Police has investigated the matter. After completion of

investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant

and a separate charge-sheet has been filed against co-

accused persons namely Gurumej Singh @ Peji Bagga and

Haridwar Prasad Soni. Since, the incident is connected with

the Appellant and other-accused persons, therefore, a

common order has been passed in both the Sessions Trial

cases by the learned Sessions Judge and Special Sessions

Judge Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.). Later on, Trial Court framed

the charges against the Appellant and other co-accused

persons. To robe the Appellant and other co-accused persons

in the crime-in-question, the prosecution has examined as

many as 11 witnesses. In the statement of the Appellant

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 the Appellant. After

completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and sentenced the

Appellant and other co-accused persons as mentioned in

Para 01 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. During the

pendency of this appeal, co-accused persons Gurumej Singh

@ Peji Bagga and Haridwar Prasad Soni were died and this

appeal was stand abated on their behalf vide order dated

24.03.2015 of this Court.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants 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 Appellant has already undergone about 2 months in jail,

He has no criminal antecedents and he is facing the lis since

last 25 years. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence

awarded to him may be reduced to the period already

undergone by him.

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

and supported the impugned judgment.

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

parties and perused the record minutely.

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

particularly considering that the Appellant is facing the lis

since last 25 years and he has no criminal antecedent. I am of

the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while

upholding the conviction imposed upon the Appellant, the jail

sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already

undergone by him.

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

the Appellant under Section 506 Part-II of the IPC is affirmed

and against the conviction he is sentenced to the period

already undergone by him. The fine sentence for the

aforesaid offence is also affirmed.

8. 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