Chattisgarh High Court
Deleted (Lakhan) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 February, 2025
1/4
2025:CGHC:7834
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 69 of 2008
1. Lakhan, Aged about 50 years, S/o Pachkaud Ram Yadav, R/o
Village Sukulpara, Kharod, P.S. Sheorinarayan, Distt. Janjgir
Champa (C.G.). (Died and abated)
2. Buthallu @ Thanendra, Aged about 22 years, S/o Lakhan Yadav,
R/o Village Sukulpara, Kharod, P.S. Sheorinarayan, Distt. Janjgir
Champa (C.G.).
3. Tharun @ Rajkumar, Aged about 24 years, S/o Lakhan Yadav, R/o
Village Sukulpara, Kharod, P.S. Sheorinarayan, Distt. Janjgir
Champa (C.G.).
... Appellants
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, through: P.S. Sheorinarayan, District- Janjgir
Champa, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
13/02/2025
1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2007 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir (C.G.), in Sessions Trial
No.134/2006 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and
sentenced the appellants as under:
Conviction Sentence
Rigorous imprisonment for 01 year
with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of
U/s 324/34 of IPC payment of fine amount additional
R.I. for 03 month. (Each of the
appellant).
2 As per order dated 21.03.2022 of this Court, Appellant No.1
(Lakhan Yadav) died on 12.07.2012 and appeal on his behalf has
already been abated.
3 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Sudhir
Kumar had a long-standing feud with Lakhan Yadav, Buthallu
Yadav, Tharun 2@ Rajkumar. On 02.11.2005 at about 10:30 pm,
when Sudhir was sitting at home with his friend Parmeshwar, the
accused persons arrived and started quarreling over the previous
rivalry, threatening to kill Sudhir. Parmeshwar tried to intervene, but
they didn't listen. Thereafter, Lakhan attacked Sudhir with a tangi
(axe) with the intention of killing him, striking his neck and causing
bleeding. Family members of Sudhir, including his mother, wife,
brother and others arrived and saw the accused persons assaulting
Sudhir. The accused persons fled from the place of incident upon
seeing them. Based on the above, a report was filed at the Police
Station and after due investigation, charge sheet was filed and
offence was registered U/s 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC against each
of the appellants .
4 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as
many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. The statement of
the appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in
which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and
pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.
5 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 14.12.2007, learned Judge has acquitted
the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307/34,
323/34, 323/34, 323/34 and convicted and sentenced the appellants
for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the
present appeal.
6 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that they are not
pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the conviction part of the
judgment and would confine his argument to the sentence part
thereof only. According to him, the incident is said to have taken
place in the year 2005, and thereby more than 19 years have rolled
by since then. At present, the appellant No. 2 is aged about more
than 41 years and Appellant No. 3 is aged about more than 43 years
and the appellants have already remained in jail for about 29 days,
and no useful purpose would be served in again sending them to
jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the
sentence imposed upon them may be reduced to the period already
undergone by them.
7 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the
impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of
the counsel for appellants.
8 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record including the impugned judgment.
9 Having gone through the material available on record and the
evidence of the witnesses Victim (PW-1), Parmeshwar (PW-2),
Sushil Yadav (PW-4), Brihaspati Bai (PW-5), Hemlata (PW-7), Dr.
M.L. Sahu (PW-13), Smt. Snehlata Kujur (PW-11), R.C. Nishad
(PW-12) and K.P. Gupta (PW-13), establish the involvement of the
appellants in the crime in question. This Court does not see any
illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards
conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under
Sections 324/34 of IPC.
10 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had
taken place on 02.11.2005 more than 19 years ago and further
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also
considering that the appellants have already remained in jail for
about 29 days, this court is of the opinion that the ends of justice
would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone
by them.
11 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to
send back the appellants to jail. Hence, the appellants No. 2 & 3 are
sentenced to the period already undergone by them i.e., 29 days
instead of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 01 year for the
offence punishable under Section 324/34 of IPC. However, the fine
amount imposed upon appellants No. 2 & 3 by the Trial Court shall
remain intact. The fine, if any, deposited by the appellants shall be
adjusted in the fine imposed by this Court today.
12 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated
above.
13 Appellants No. 2 & 3 are on bail. If the appellants have deposited
the imposed fine amount then their bail bonds shall stands
discharged.
14 Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this
judgment forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Sourabh P.
