Premlal And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2024 Latest Caselaw 746 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

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

Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:23334




                                         1

                                                                               NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                              CRA No. 984 of 2013
1. Premlal S/o Shri Dayaram Verma Aged About 58 Years.

2. Dinesh S/o Shri Rampyara Verma Aged About 32 Years.

3. Parmeshwar S/o Shri Dayaram Verma Aged About 42 Years.

4. Parasram Verma S/o Shri Dayaram Verma Aged About 65
   Years.
5. Balaram S/o Shri Rajaram Yadav Aged About 51 Years.

   Both are Agriculturist and R/o Village Lohargiya, PS- Nandghat,
   Distt. Durg (Presently Civil and Revnue Distt. Bemetara),
   Chhattisgarh
                                                                    ----Appellants
                                    Versus
   State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Durg
   (Presently Distt. Bemetara) C.G.
                                                                  ---- Respondent
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellants : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, 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. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants

against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

30.08.2013, passed in Special Sessions Case No.152/2002 by

which the learned Special 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 for 07 - 07 years with fine of Rs.3,000/-. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23334

2. 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 and they were arrested.

3. 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 IPC and Sections 3(2)

(5) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act of 1989').

4. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 18

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.

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

evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned

judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants in the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23334

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

appeal.

6. 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 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. Incident took

place in the year 2002 and, therefore, no purpose would be

served by again sending the appellants 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 Nos.3 & 4 served more than 1 years of jail sentence

whereas appellant Nos.1, 2 & 5 served more than 3 years of jail

sentence. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to

appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by

them.

7. 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. Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23334

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

record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.

9. 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.

10. 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).

11. 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 appellants were aged about 48, 21, 30, 50

& 40 respectively and at present they are at the age of 70, 43,

52, 72 & 62 respectively, 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 Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23334

and ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to

appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them.

12. 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.

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

stand cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged.

14. 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/-