Morgan Kachhap vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 520 Chatt

                                  1

                                                                 NAFR

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       CRR No. 14 of 2020

       Morgan Kachhap, S/o Julias, aged about 39 years, Caste
        - Uraon, Village - Chando, Khutiyapara, P.S. - Chando,
        District - Balrampur (C.G.). At present R/o Bandiyakhar,
        P.S. - Pathalgaon, District - Jashpur (C.G.)

                                                         ----Applicant
                              Versus
       State of Chhattisgarh Through            :   Police   Station   -
        Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.)
                                                      ---- Respondent

For Applicant                 :       Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Adv.
For Respondent/State          :       Mr. Shakti Singh Thakur, P.L.


               Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

                         Order on Board
25/01/2023

01. Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.11.2019 passed

by Additional Sessions Judge, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur

(C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No.33/2019 afrming the judgment

and order dated 23.09.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Patthalgaon, in Criminal Case No.13/2015 convicting

the accused/applicant under Section 332/34 IPC and

sentencing him to undergo R.I for 09 month with fne of

Rs.100/-, plus default stipulation.

02. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.10.2014, Sanjiya

Kayta, Assistant Sub Inspector along with his staf Dewanand

Bhoy, Constable, left for village Patrapali, Pilidih - Pangsua to

fnd out illegal gambling and minor act, there they received

secret information that the applicant is running gambling in

his house. Thereafter, the Assistant Sub Inspector along with

Constable reached the place where the applicant was

gambling and initiated action against the applicant and co-

accused persons namely Dewanand Behra, Madan Bansod and

Sanjay Bansod, whereupon all the four accused got agitated

and committed maarpeet with the Sanjeev Kayta and

Dewanand Bhoy and they also looted mobile of Sanjeev Kayta

and ATM Card, Driving License, Voter ID Card & cash of

Rs.1500/- from Dewanand Bhoy as also they torn the uniform

of Sanjeev Kayta and Dewanand Bhoy, Asstt. Sub Inspector

and Constabe, respectively. Thereafter, a written report under

Ex.P/1 of the incident was lodged at Police Station -

Patthalgaon, based on which, FIR bearing Crime No.167/2014

for the ofence punishable under Section 294, 506 Part-II, 323,

353, 394 of IPC was registered against the applicant and co-

accused persons.

03. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet

was fled against the accused/applicant and other co-accused

persons under Sections 294, 506, 323, 186, 332, 353 and 394

IPC, and charges under Sections 294, 506B, 323, 186, 332,

353 and 394 IPC were framed by the trial Court against the

accused/applicant and other co-accused persons.

04. So as to hold the accused/applicant guilty, the

prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statement of

the accused/applicant was also recorded under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing

against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and

false implication and examined three defence witnesses.

05. Vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2015 the trial

Magistrate while acquitting the applicant and other accused

persons of the ofence under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 186,

394 IPC, has convicted the applicant under Section 332/34 IPC

sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 9 months with fne of

Rs.100/-, with default stipulation. The judgment of the trial

Court has been confrmed by the appellate Court vide

impugned judgment dated 05.11.2019, hence this revision.

06. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order

passed by the both the Courts below is illegal and perverse in

law as well as in facts. He further submits that the

prosecution has utterly failed to establish seizure proceeding

and there is unexplained delay of about 4 hours in lodging the

FIR, which itself created suspicion. He further submits that

the independent witnesses as well as memorandum and

seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the

prosecution and only on the basis of injured witness of police,

the applicant has been convicted, which is highly doubtful and

creates suspicion. Learned counsel also submits that the lower

Court as well as the appellate Court did not consider the

contradiction and omission in the statements of the

prosecution witnesses and the fact that the doctor has opined

that injuries sustained by the complainant was due to hard

and blunt object & and not due to club or hands & fsts.

07. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it

has been argued by the State counsel that the conviction of

the applicant is in accordance with law and there is no

infrmity in the same.

08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

09. Having gone through the material on record and the

evidence of witnesses Sanjeev Kumar Kayta (PW/1), Asstt. Sub

Inspector, Dewanand Bhoy (PW/2), Constable, and B.L. Kurre

(PW9), Investigating Ofcer, coupled with the evidence of Dr.

J. Minj (PW/8), who found bruise on the body of Sanjeev Kumar

Kayta (PW/1) in the size of 2 ½ x 1 cm in to skin deep on right

side of hip with bluish, having pain in neck, chest and knee &

abrasion on the body of Dewanand Bhoy (PW/2) in the size of

1 ½ x 1 cm into skin deep on right knee joint, abrasion of ½ x

½ over right hand and reports under Ex.P/15 and P/16

respectively, truly established that on the date of incident,

PW/1 and PW/2 had gone to village Patrapali, Pilidih - Pangsua

to fnd out illegal gambling and minor act, and found the

applicant gambling in his house & when the legal action was

being taken, the applicant along with other co-accused

persons agitated and started committing maarpeet by the

means of club, in which PW/1 and PW/2 sustained injuries.

This Court does not fnd any illegality or infrmity in the

fndings recorded by both the Courts below as regards

conviction and sentence.

10. In the result, the criminal revision is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE pkd