Chattisgarh High Court
Krishna Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
2025:CGHC:9698
PATEL Date:
NAFR
2025.02.25
18:07:50 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 419 of 2008
• Krishna Chandrakar, Aged about 45 years, S/o Milap Singh
Chandrakar, R/o Village Soram, PO-Darbar Mokhli, Tahsil Paatan,
P.S. Urla, Distt.-Durg, C.G.
... Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Utai, District-Durg (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
25/02/2025
1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2008 passed by the
learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions judge, Durg (C.G.)
in Special Case No. 41/2006 whereby the learned Special Judge and
Additional Sessions Judge have convicted and sentenced the
appellant as under :
Conviction Sentence
U/s 324 of IPC R.I. for 02 years with fine of Rs.
2000/-; in default of payment of fine
amount additional R.I. for 03
months.
2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.07.2006 at about
07:00 a.m., the accused Krishna Chandrakar entered the house of
the complainant with malicious intent and and grabbed her hand.
The complainant was cried out and managed to free herself but the
accused caught her saree and started pulling her, causing her to fall
during the scuffle. Upon hearing cry of his wife, Shatrughan, who
was near canal came there and tried to rescue his wife. During this,
the accused bite the middle finger of right hand of Shatrughan and
fleeing from the place of incident. Thereafter, the complainant and
her husband went to the Utai Police Station and reported the matter
and offence was registered against the present appellant under
Sections 451, 323, 324, 354 of IPC and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the
prosecutrix has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 11
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 and has examined only 01 witness in his defence
4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 31.03.2008, learned trial Court has
acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections
451, 354 and 323 and 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 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. At present, the appellant is aged about more than 63
years and the appellant has already remained in jail for about 11
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 Dr. R.K. Wadhwani (PW-3), Complainant
(PW-04), Shatrughan (PW-5), Smt. Meena Nayak (PW-6), Bhagat
(PW-7), 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 Section 324 of IPC.
9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident had
taken place on 17.07.2006 about more than 18 years ago and further
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also
considering the fact that the appellant has already remained in jail
for about 11 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., 11 days instead of
suffering rigorous imprisonment for 02 years for the offence
punishable under Section 324 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.
