Chattisgarh High Court
Bisouha Ram Kurre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 February, 2025
1
Digitally
2025:CGHC:8718
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH
NAFR
PATEL
PATEL Date:
2025.02.21
15:59:59
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 157 of 2007
• Bisouha Ram Kurre, S/o Vishram Kurre, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Son Pairi (Darba), Police Station-Mandir Hasoud, Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.).
...Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, District-
Raipur (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
19/02/2025
1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2007 passed by the
learned 09th Additional Session Judge (FTC), Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.), in Session Trial No. 426/2006 whereby the learned
Session Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :
Conviction Sentence
R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.
U/s 326 of IPC 500/-, in default of payment of fine
amount additional R.I. for 01 month.
R.I. for 02 years with fine of
Rs.500/-, in default of payment of
U/s 325 of IPC
fine amount additional R.I. for 01
month.
(Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently)
2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant namely
Ram Bai had been ill for three years and was undergoing treatment,
but she was not recovering. On the suspicion that someone was
casting a spell on her, on 23.09.2006 at about 08 am, she was
abusing someone at her home when the accused Bisaharam arrived
with an iron rod, believing that Ram Bai was abusing him. With the
intention of killing her, he struck her on the head with the rod,
causing serious injuries. When the daughter of Ram bai Lalita
intervened, the accused also assaulted her with the rod, causing
injuries. When the incident was going on, one of the witness Raja
Ram was intervened and separate them to each other. Thereafter, the
complainant has lodged report against the present appellant at
Police Station-Mandir Hasoud and the offence was registered
against the present appellant under Section 307 of IPC.
3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the
prosecutrix has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 21
documents. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances
appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication
in the case.
4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 22.02.2007, learned trial Court has
acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section
307 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant for the
offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present
appeal.
5 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he is 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 2006, and thereby more than 18 years have rolled
by since then and compromise has taken place between the victim
and the appella2nt. At present, the appellant is aged about more than
56 years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 06
months 14 days, and no useful purpose would be served in again
sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be
appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the
impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of
the counsel for appellant.
7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record including the impugned judgment.
8 Having gone through the material available on record and the
evidence of the witnesses Complainant (PW-1), Punitram (PW-4),
Rajendra Kumar (PW-5), S.R. Kosariya (PW-9), Dr. K.S. Rai (PW-
10) and Dhanesh Dhruv (PW-11), establish the involvement of the
appellant 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 appellant for the offence punishable under
Sections 325 and 326 of IPC.
9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that a compromise
application has been filed by the complainant before the trial Court
but looking to the charge of 307 of IPC, the same has been rejected,
further, considering the fact that the incident had taken place on
23.09.2006 about more than 18 years ago and also considering the
facts and circumstances of the case and the appellant has already
remained in jail for about 06 months 14 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 him.
10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to
send back the appellant to jail. Hence, the appellant is sentenced to
the period already undergone by him i.e., 06 months 14 days instead
of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 03 years for the offence
punishable under Section 326 of IPC and for 02 years for the
offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC. However, the fine
amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court shall remain
intact.
11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated
above.
12 Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further
period of 6 months as per requirement of Section 437-A of the
Cr.P.C.
13 Record of the trial Court 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.
