Chattisgarh High Court
Kuldeep Singh And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:2342
Digitally signed
NAFR
by SOURABH
SOURABH
PATEL
PATEL
Date:
2025.01.16
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
14:14:17
+0530
CRA No. 829 of 2011
1. Kuldeep Singh, S/o Late Darshan Singh, Aged about 30 years, R/o
Raipur Naka, F.C.I. Road, Rajnandgaon, Police Station and District
Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
2. Boby @ Satinderpal, S/o Mahender Singh Bhatia, Aged about 35
years, R/o Kaurinbhatha, Rajnandgaon, Police Station Basantpur,
Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
3. Jasvir Singh, S/o Harbhajan Singh, Aged about 47 years, R/o
Chandra Colony, Rajnandgaon, Police Station Basantpur,
Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
... Appellants
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Kotwali,
Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Deepak Diwakar, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
14/01/2025
1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 14.10.2011 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Special Case No.
25/2009 whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted and
sentenced the appellants as under :
Conviction Sentence
Rs. 1000/- fine to each of the
Appellants, in default of payment of
U/s 323/34 of IPC
fine amount S.I. for 01-01 month to
each.
Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months
with fine of Rs. 3000/- to each, in
U/s 384 of IPC
default of payment of fine amount
additional R.I. for 01-01 year to each.
2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.12.2008 at about
08:30 Pm, when the complainant (Dayadas Jangde) after loading
cotton on his truck going towards Korba near Agrawal Transport ,
the present appellants forcefully stoped the truck and abused the
complainant by using filthy language and started quarreling by
saying without permission of the truck union you have loaded your
truck so you have to pay fine amount of Rs.5,100/- thereafter
snatched the documents related to the vehicle. Thereafter, the
complainant lodged the report on 19.12.2008 and the offence was
registered against the present appellants.
3 So as to hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as
many as 03 witnesses and exhibited 03 documents. The statement of
the appellants were 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.
4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 14.10.2011, learned Judge has acquitted
the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of
SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 294 of IPC and
convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences as
mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.
5 Learned counsel appearing for the appellants 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 2008, and thereby more than 15 years have rolled
by since then. At present, the appellants are aged about 43 to 60
years and the appellants have already remained in jail for about 02
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.
6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the
impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of
the counsel for appellants.
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 Dayadas Jangde (PW-1), Ramdhan
Sirmaur (PW-2), Hemchand Verma-S.I. (PW-3), 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 offences
punishable under Sections 323/34 and 384 of IPC.
9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the appellant-
Jasbir was the president of the truck union and complainant is also
a truck driver and owner and there was a dispute related to
transportation of goods and also considering the fact that the
incident had taken place on 18.12.2008 about 15 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 02 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.
10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it appropriate to
send back the appellants to jail. Hence, the appellants are sentenced
to the period already undergone by them instead of suffering
rigorous imprisonment for 01-01 year for the offence punishable
under Sections 384 of IPC. However, the fine amount imposed upon
the appellants by the Trial Court shall remain intact.
11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated
above.
12 Appellants are on bail. Their 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 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.
