Chattisgarh High Court
Lal Babu And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 January, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:2223
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 870 of 2005
01. Lal Babu @ Prafulla S/o Laxmicharan Deewan, aged about 27
years,
02. Pratap @ Pandit S/o Laxmicharan Kanwar, aged about 24 years,
03. Gopinath S/o Laxmicharan Deewan, aged about 30 years,
04. Dhanurjay S/o Santram Kanwar, aged about 22 years,
All are residence of Village-Kosampali, Police Station - Saraipali,
Distt. Mahasamund (CG)
... Appellants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, Mahasamund
(CG)
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Rahul Pathak,Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Awadh Tripathi, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Judgment On Board
14/01/2025
The appellants in this appeal are challenging the legality and
validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
25.11.2005 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund
in ST No.301/2005 whereby each of the appellants stands convicted
under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one
year and pay a fine of Rs.500/- or else to suffer additional one month's
RI.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.3.2005 at around 8
pm complainant Shobharam was talking with Biharilal in front of his
house about the panchayat election. Father of the accused persons
namely Laxmicharan Deewan had also contested the election for
Janpad member and lost the election. Hearing the discussion of the
Shobharam with Biharilal about election, the accused persons got
enraged and started filthily abusing the complainant. Accused Lalbabu
assaulted the complainant with a wooden log and rest of the accused
persons assaulted him with hands and fist. When Biharilal and
Shantibai (complainant's wife) intervened, she too was beaten with
hands and fists. Shobharam sustained injuries over his head, chest,
back and waist whereas Shantibai suffered injuries over her mouth and
back. It being late at night, the report was lodged on the next day by
the complainant at Police Station - Saraipali. The complainant and his
wife were got medically examined. After completion of necessary
investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 294, 323, 307, 34
of IPC.
03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 307/34
and 323/34 of IPC against the accused persons which were abjured by
them and they prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the
prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused were
recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the
incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution
case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness
was examined by them in defence.
04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court
while acquitting the accused persons of charges under Sections 294,
307/34 and 323/34 of IPC, convicted and sentenced them as
mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.
05. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. As per
evidence of PW-9 Biharilal, the complainant fell on the floor and
sustained injuries but due to some political reasons, the appellants
were falsely implicated in this crime. He submits that the complainant is
in the habit of consuming liquor and as such, in view of evidence of
PW-9 Biharilal, it is clear that he sustained injuries due to fall under the
influence of liquor. The medical evidence also does not support the
prosecution case. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
all reasonable doubt and therefore, the findings recorded by learned
trail Court are not sustainable and the appellants deserve to be
acquitted of the charge.
Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellants submits that if
this ultimately comes to the conclusion that conviction of the appellants
is proper, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case
giving rise to the incident which took place in the year 2005, the appeal
is pending since 2005 and the appellants have remained in jail for 02
months and never misused the liberty while on bail, their jail sentence
may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the
contention of the appellants submits that the learned trial Court upon
minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly
convicted and sentenced by the appellants by the impugned judgment
which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present
appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the
appellants were charged under Sections 294, 307/34 and 323/34 of
IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned
trial Court while acquitting them of the charges under Sections 294,
307/34 and 323/34 of IPC, held them guilty under Section 325/34 of
IPC.
09. PW-2 Shobharam, complainant, states that on the date of
incident all the accused persons abused him filthily, on which he ran
into his room but they caught hold of him and then accused Lalbabu
assaulted him with a wooden log on his head and thereafter all the
accused persons beat him with legs and fist as a result of which he
sustained injuries on his head and ribs and fell unconscious.
10. PW-1 Dr. NL Sahu medically examined the complainant on
16.3.2005 and found as many as nine injuries on his body and advised
for x-ray of head and chest. As per x-ray report, no fracture was found
on head but there was fracture of ribs vide his report Ex.P/1. X-ray film
of head is Article A and x-ray film of chest is Article B.
In cross-examination, the complainant and the doctor remained
firm and nothing could be elicited by the defence from them to make
their evidence doubtful or untrustworthy.
11. PW-3 Butkunwar Bai and PW-4 Shantibai have also supported
the statement of the complainant.
12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
unrebutted oral evidence of the complainant which is duly supported by
the evidence of PW-3 & PW-4 as also by the medical evidence of PW-
1, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court upon proper
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly
convicted the appellants under Section 325/34 of IPC. Being so, there
is no need to interfere with the findings of guilt recorded by the learned
trial Court.
13. As regards sentence, considering the fact that the incident
occurred in the year 2005, the appeal is also pending since 2005; the
appellants were on bail during trial as well as during pendency of this
appeal and nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that
they ever misused the liberty so granted and they have remained in jail
for about two months, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful
purpose would be served in sending the appellants back to jail at this
stage and the ends of justice would be served if they are sentenced to
the period already undergone by them.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining
conviction of the appellants under Section 325/34 of IPC, their jail
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
However, the fine imposed on them by the learned trial Court with
default sentence shall remain intact. They are reported to be on bail,
therefore, their bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six
months in view of provisions of Section 437A of CrPC.
Sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
Digitally
Judge
MOHD signed by
AKHTAR MOHD
KHAN AKHTAR
KHAN
Khan
