Chattisgarh High Court
Yogesh Kumar Rayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:9899
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
NAFR
PATEL Date:
2025.03.04
10:53:56
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 906 of 2007
• Yogesh Kumar Rayak, Aged about 26 years, S/o Shri
Jeevnath, Occupation-Labourer, R/o Village-Dhobiguda,
P.S. Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G.).
... Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Ajak Jagdalpur,
District-Bastar (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
27/02/2025
1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 24.09.2007 passed
by the learned Special Judge (FTC), Bastar, Jagdalpur
(C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 88/2007, whereby the learned
Special Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant
as under :
Conviction Sentence
R.I. for 02 years with fine of Rs.
1000/-, in default of payment
U/s 324 of IPC of fine amount additional R.I. for
02 months.
2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant
Manish Kumar is a member of Scheduled Tribe, who
resides in Dongaghatpara, Jagdalpur and works as a daily
newspaper distributor. About 15-20 days prior to the
incident, a dispute arose between Manish and the accused
Suresh Kumar during a cricket match and a report of the
said incident was filed by Manish at Police Station on
11.03.2007. The accused, who belong to the same family
harbored a grudge against Manish due to the earlier
dispute. On the date of incident at about 9:30 am, when
Manish was returning from delivering newspaper, three
accused persons confronted him near the Erikpal Bridge
and abused him related to her caste. The accused Yogesh
assaulted Manish by way of an axe on his thigh and knee.
Suresh assaulted Manish with his fists, while Nuvesh held
bicycle of Manish. Thereafter Manish abandoned his bicycle
and fled from the place of incident to the residence of
Panchu and narrated him about the incident.
Subsequently, family members of Manish were called and
FIR was filed at the Jagdalpur Police Station and offence
was registered against the present appellant and other co-
accused persons under Section 324, 324/34 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the
offence, the complainant has examined as many as 06
witnesses and exhibited 09 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 01 witness and exhibited 02
documents in his defence.
4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 24.09.2007, learned
trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act, 1989 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
2007, and thereby more than 17 years have rolled by since
then. The other co-accused persons namely Suresh (A-2)
and Nuvesh (A-3) have already acquitted by the trial Court.
He further submits that father of appellant had filed an FIR
about 10 days ago against the complainant side which is
clear from Ex-D2. He further submits that at present, the
appellant is aged about more than 43 years. Therefore, in
the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the
sentence imposed upon him may be set off by enhancing
fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court.
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),
Devendra Mandan (PW-2), Surendranath (PW4), Dr. R.B.P.
Gupta (PW-5) and D.R.S. Uikey (PW-6) , 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 and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fact
that the father of appellant had filed an FIR about 10 days
ago against the complainant side which is clear from Ex-
D2, further considering the facts that the incident had
taken place on 11.03.2007 about more than 17 years ago
and at present, the appellant is aged about more than 43
years and he has no previous criminal record, this court is
of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if his
jail sentence is set off by enhancing fine amount imposed
by the learned trial Court.
10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it
appropriate to send the appellant to jail for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of IPC. However, the fine
amount of Rs.1000/- imposed upon the appellant by the
trial Court is hereby enhanced to Rs.3000/- which shall be
payable by the appellant, failing which the appellant shall
be liable to undergo R.I. for 03 months. Fine, if any,
deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted in the fine
imposed/enhanced by this Court today.
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.
