Dr.Arjun Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 880 Chatt

                                                  1

                                                                                             NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             Criminal Appeal No.214 of 2009

Raju @ Babaji Maharaj, S/o Late Rajkishore Aiyyer, Aged about 70 (73)
years, Occupation Dharmguru, R/o Vill. Baycee Colony, P.S. & Tah.
Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.)
                                                     (Accused person)
                                                         ---- Appellant

                                              Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh
(C.G.)
                                                            ---- Respondent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant: Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocates. For State/Respondent: Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Panel Lawyer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AND

Criminal Revision No.137 of 2009

Dr. Arjunsingh Thakur, Aged about 51 years, S/o Late Shri Jagdev Prasad Thakur, Occupation Doctor (Permanent Government Employee), R/o Govt. Hospital, Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) (Complainant)

---- Applicant

Versus

1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through its District Magistrate, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Prosecution)

2. Raju @ Babaji Maharaj, aged about 70 years, S/o Late Rajkishore Ayyar, Occupation Dharma-Guru, R/o Village Bayasi, Police Station & Tehsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Accused)

---- Non-applicants

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Applicant/Complainant: -

Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Advocate.

For State/Non-applicant No.1: -

Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Panel Lawyer.

For Non-applicant No.2/Accused: -

Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocates.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

10/02/2023

1. Since both the above criminal appeal and criminal revision have

arisen out of one and same judgment dated 8-12-2008 passed by the

4th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh in Sessions Trial

No.23/2007, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are

being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Cr.A.No.214/2009 has been preferred by the accused / appellant -

Raju @ Babaji Maharaj under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against the

impugned judgment convicting him for the offences punishable under

Sections 186 & 333 of the IPC and sentencing him to pay a fine of ₹

500/- & ₹ 2,000/-, respectively, in default, of payment of fine to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months, whereas he has been

acquitted of the charges under Sections 294 & 506 Part-II of the IPC.

3. Cr.Rev.No.137/2009 has been preferred by the complainant - Dr.

Arjun Singh Thakur under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the

CrPC seeking enhancement of the sentences awarded to accused

Raju @ Babaji Maharaj.

4. Mr. A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel appearing for accused - Raju @

Babaji Maharaj, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely

unjustified in holding that the accused has committed the offences

under Sections 186 & 333 of the IPC. He would further submit that

considering the present age of the accused i.e. 86 years and that he is

suffering from various ailments, the appeal be allowed and the

revision be dismissed.

5. Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for complainant - Dr.

Arjun Singh Thakur, would submit that the sentences awarded to the

accused are not in proportion to the offences committed by him as no

imprisonment has been awarded to him and therefore it requires to be

interfered with.

6. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned

judgment.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival

submissions made herein-above and also went through the record

with utmost circumspection.

8. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary

evidence available on record has clearly recorded finding that accused

Raju @ Babaji Maharaj is guilty of the offences punishable under

Sections 186 & 333 of the IPC and came to the conclusion that he had

interfered with the work of a public servant i.e. the complainant herein

and voluntarily caused hurt to him and accordingly finding those

offences proved, convicted and sentenced him as above-mentioned.

Such a finding is finding of fact based on record. It is in accordance

with law.

9. Imposition of jail sentence for offences under Sections 186 & 333 of

the IPC is not mandatory as the discretion is conferred to impose

either jail sentence or the sentence of fine or with both which, in the

present, the trial Court has chosen to award only the sentence of fine.

10. In that view of the matter and considering the fact that the incident is of 16-5-2005 and presently, the accused is aged about 86 years, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and as such, I am not inclined to enhance the sentences awarded to the accused. Consequently, the appeal and the revision, both are dismissed finding no merit.

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma