Reludas And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2024 Latest Caselaw 733 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Reludas And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 July, 2024

Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:23334




                                         1

                                                                                 NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                              CRA No. 876 of 2013
1. Reludas   S/o Mansingh Satnami Aged About 55 Years,
    Occupation Agriculture.
2. Vijay Kumar S/o Shivnandan Aged About 27 Years, Occupation-
    Agriculture.
    Both are R/o Village Lohdangiya, PS -Nandghat, Civil Distt. Durg
    and Rev. Distt. Bemetara, C.G.
3. (Deleted) Shivnandan As Per Honble Court Order Dated.
    26/04/2024.
                                                                     ---- Appellants
                                     Versus
  State of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO, PS- Nandghat, Civil
   Distt. Durg, Rev. Distt. Bemetara C.G.
                                                                   ---- Respondent
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellants : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Advocate For the State : Mr. GL Uikey, PL.

For the Complainant : Mr. R.K. Thakur, Advocate.

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

Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 02.07.2024

1. Vide order dated 26.04.2024, appeal has been abated on behalf

of accused/appellant No.3 as he died on 26.09.2019.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants

against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

30.08.2013, passed in S.T. No.64/2003 by which the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, (CG), convicted the accused/

appellants under Sections 148, 458, 307/149 & 307/149 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo maximum RI Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23334

for 07 - 07 years with fine of Rs.3,000/-.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that complainant (Manju

Ratnakar) lodged report to the concerned Police Station

mentioning therein that on 31.08.2002 she and her husband

Rohit Ratnakar were sleeping in their house. At night about

01:00 O'clock, accused/appellants alongwith other co-accused

persons armed with deadly weapons entered into their house,

started abusing the Rohit by his caste and, thereafter, assaulted

him by means of stick, chain, rod and sharp edged weapon.

When she (Manju) tried to intervene, she was also assaulted by

them. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the

appellants for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 450 & 307

of IPC.

4. On completion of investigation, challan/charge sheet was filed

against the appellants for the offence under Sections 147, 148,

307/149, 307, 307/149, 307, 458 & 459 of the IPC.

5. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 13

witnesses. Statement of the appellants (accused) was also

recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied all

incriminating evidence appearing against them, pleaded

innocence and false implication. However, they examined two

witnesses in their defence.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the

evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23334

judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants in the

manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this

appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that he is not

pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of

impugned judgment and is confining his argument to the

quantum of sentence only. He submits that incident had taken

place on 31.08.2002, there was no pre-meditation and on the

spur of moment incident had taken place, it was first offence of

appellants and thereafter they had not indulged themselves in

any other criminal activity. At the time of incident, appellant No.1

was aged about 48 whereas appellant No.2 was 20 years and at

present appellant No.1 is aged about 70 years and appellant

No.2 is 42 years and, therefore, no purpose would be served by

again sending them jail after a lapse of about 22 years.

During pendency of this appeal, appellants and

complainant/injured (Rohit Ratnakar & Manju Ratnakar) have

entered into compromise and in this regard compromise

application was filed before Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this

Court where statements of both parties have been recorded.

Appellant No.1 has served more than 3 years of jail sentence

whereas appellant No.2 has served about 1 year of jail sentence.

Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to appellants may

be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23334

8. Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the

Complainant also endorse the said fact that the appellants and

complainant/injured have entered into a compromise.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.

10. Though learned counsel for appellants have not challenged

conviction of appellants and restricted his prayer only with regard

to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this Court deems

it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment of the Court

below. This Court has meticulously perused impugned judgment

and evidence on record.

11. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after

elaborately considering evidence of each individual material

witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case

beyond reasonable doubt against appellants herein and that

being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court

has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that

appellants are guilty for the aforementioned offence (described in

Para-1 of this judgment).

12. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the fact that

incident took place in the year 2002 i.e. 22 years have elapsed,

at the time of incident appellant No.1 was aged about 48

whereas appellant No.2 was 20 years and at present appellant

No.1 is aged about 70 years and appellant No.2 is 42 years, Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23334

further considering that both the parties have amicably resolved

their dispute and developed cordial relationship with each other,

this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be

served in sending appellants to jail at this point of time for

undergoing remaining period of sentence and ends of justice

would be met if the sentence awarded to appellants is reduced to

the period already undergone by them.

13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of

appellant under Sections 148, 458, 307/149 & 307/149 of the

Indian Penal Code are hereby affirmed. Sentences imposed

upon appellants under aforementioned Sections are hereby

modified and reduced to the period already undergone by

appellants.

14. Appellants are reported to be on bail, hence, their bail bonds

stand cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged.

15. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be

sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for

compliance and necessary action.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

J/-