Chattisgarh High Court
Motiram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 April, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 771 of 2012
Motiram S/o Shri Katwari Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Palama O.P. Bhatgaon
Ps And Tah. - Pratappur Distt. - Surajpur C.G.,
... Petitioner/accused
Digitally versus
signed by
ANJANI
KUMAR State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ps In-Charge Ps Pratappur Distt. - Surajpur C.G.
ALLENA
Date: ... Respondent
2025.04.08
10:54:41
+0530 For Petitioner : Shri Anjiv Kumar Singh appears on behalf of Shri
Bhupendra Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
Order on Board
07/04/2025
Heard.
1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
17.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Pratappur, Dist. Surajpur C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.114/2012
whereby the appeal of the applicant has been dismissed while affirming
the judgment dated 16.07.2012 passed in Criminal Case No.439/2011
by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pratappur convicting the
applicant under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.200/-,
in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional simple
imprisonment for 6 months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant/injured -
Ramsai lodged a report at police outpost Bhatgaon on 31.01.2003
stating therein that due to land dispute, applicant - Motiram, who is
younger brother of the complainant, assaulted him with axe on his right
leg, resulting in, he received injury. On report being lodged to the
above effect, offence under the aforesaid Section 326 IPC has been
registered against the applicant. The injured/complainant was
medically examined by Dr. Maheshwar Singh (P.W.10) and vide Ex.P.3,
axe was seized from the possession of the applicant/accused on
01.02.2003 and he was arrested on the same date.
3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of
investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Surajpur. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-
guilty.
4. The Court of JMFC and appellate Court, after appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicant as
mentioned in Para 1 of this order. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to
challenge this revision on conviction part of the applicant but confines
his argument to the sentence part only, which according to him, is on
higher side. He further submits that the applicant and the complainant
are brothers in relation and the incident happened because of land
dispute between them, in which, in a spur of moment and without any
premeditation, the applicant assaulted the complainant. He further
submits that complainant/injured - Ramsai has died after 5 years from
the date of incident, therefore, he was not examined. He further
contends that the applicant was in jail from 02.02.2003 to 07.05.2003
during trial and thereafter, he was again in jail from 17.10.2012 to
19.01.2013 and thus, he remained in jail for a period of 6 months and 4
days and that he has no criminal antecedents and is facing the lis since
2003, i.e. for more than 22 years. He also submits that now the
applicant is aged about 60 years and that fine amount has already
been deposited, therefore, it is urged by him that the jail sentence
awarded to the applicant may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and
supported the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
8. Considering the statement of PW-2 Muneshwar Ram Soni, P.W.6
Sukhal, P.W.7 Smt. Parvati, wife of the complainant/injured - Ramsai
and medical evidence of P.W.10 Dr. Maheshwar Singh as well as other
evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion
that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a
correct finding and I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of
applicant.
9. As regards the sentence part, considering the fact that the
complainant/injured and the applicant are real brothers and the dispute
arose between them is out of land dispute and further considering the
facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that
the applicant has undergone six months and 4 days, he is facing the lis
since 2003 i.e. for more than 22 years, there is no criminal antecedents
against him and looking to the fact that now the applicant is now old
aged person, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if,
while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail
sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone
by him.
10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining
conviction of the applicant under Section 326 of IPC, the sentence
imposed thereunder by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is
hereby modified and he is sentenced to the period already undergone
by him. The fine sentence is affirmed.
11. It is reported that the applicant is on bail. His bail bonds shall not be
discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a
further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Anjani
