Damrudhar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 4071 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Damrudhar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 April, 2025

                                                             1




                                                                                             NAFR
          Digitally signed

PRAKASH
          by PRAKASH
          KUMAR
                                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KUMAR     Date:
          2025.04.30
          17:31:48 +0530
                                              Criminal Revision No.428 of 2016

                      1. Damrudhar Yadav S/o Benuram, aged about 33 years, R/o Village
                             Kotiya, Police Station Narayanpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh,
                      2. Ganesh Ram S/o Bhuneshwar Ram Yadav, aged about 35 years, R/o
                             Village   Kotiya,   Police   Station   Narayanpur,   District   Jashpur,
                             Chhattisgarh,
                                                                                       ... Applicants
                                                          Versus
                      •      State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station
                             Narayanpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh,
                                                                                     ... Respondent

For Applicants : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 30/04/2025

1. The present revision is filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal

Procedure against the judgment dated 29.04.2016 passed by the

Additional Judge, to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri,

District - Jashpur, (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.20/2012 arising out of

judgment dated 27.08.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Kunkuri, District - Jashpur in Criminal Case No.463/2011

wherein the applicants/accused persons have been convicted under

Section 6 read with Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle

Preservation Act, 2004 and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 6 months each and fine of Rs.200/- each, and in

default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for

01 month. The learned Appellate Court affirmed the said judgment,

hence, this revision.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the on 30.08.2012, the

complainant, namely, Arjun Nagdeo (PW-01) lodged a report in police

station, stating that the present applicants/accused persons were

taking 10-12 agricultural cattle cow and oxes, for the purpose of

slaughtering. On the basis of the said report, the police recovered the

said cattle from the possession of the applicants/accused persons.

During investigation, the applicants/ accused persons were arrested.

Statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The

applicants abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty.

4. The Court of learned JMFC as well as the Appellate Court, after

appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and

sentenced the applicants/accused persons as mentioned in paragraph

one of this judgment. Hence, this revision.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to

press this revision on conviction of the applicants, but confines his

argument to the sentence part only, which according to him, is on

higher side. He further submits that there is no prescribed minimum

punishment under the aforesaid Section. He further submits that the

applicants have remained in jail for 13 days i.e. from 29.04.2016 to

11.05.2016, they have no criminal antecedents and they are facing lis

since the year 2010. He also submits that the fine amount has already

been deposited with the concerned trial Court. Therefore, the jail

sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period

already undergone by them.

6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revisions and

supported the impugned judgment.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and

perused the record.

8. Considering the statements of complainant Arjun Ram Nagdev

(PW-01), Premsai Manjhi (PW-03), Vishnu Ram (PW-04) and the 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

applicants/accused persons.

9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances

of the case, and also considering the facts that applicants have

remained in jail for 13 days and, they are facing the lis since 2010 i.e.

for about 14 years, there are no criminal antecedents against them and

fine amount has already been deposited, I am of the view that ends of

justice would be met if the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to

the period of 13 days which has already been undergone by them.

10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the

applicants under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and they are

sentenced to the period already undergone by them. However, the fine

sentence is affirmed.

11. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail

bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view

of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

Prakash