Hiradhar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 267 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Hiradhar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 July, 2025

                                                              1




                                                                               2025:CGHC:29624
          Digitally signed
          by PRAKASH
PRAKASH   KUMAR
          Date:                                                                                 NAFR
KUMAR     2025.07.02
          16:57:45
          +0530
                                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                   CRR No. 671 of 2016
                        1 - Chhed Ram S/o Anand Ram Aged About 62 Years,
                        2 - Horilal S/o Maya Ram Sahu Aged About 46 Years,
                        3 -Chaitram Sahu S/o Narayan Sahu Aged About 50 Years,
                        Applicant No.1 to 3 are R/o Village Darra, Police Station at Present Gidhori,
                        Civil And Rev. District Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                     --- Applicants
                                                           versus
                        1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Baloda, Civil And
                        Rev. District Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                     --- Respondent

1 - Hiradhar S/o Pilaram Sahu Aged About 75 Years, 2 - Dauwa Ram Gond @ Dauwalal S/o Mehattar Gond Aged About 58 Years, 3 - Premlal S/o Kartikram Sahu Aged About 55 Years, Applicant No.1 to 3 are R/o Darra, Police Station At Present Gighori, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar / Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh,

---Applicants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Baloda, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar / Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent

1 - Chhedilal S/o Gotiram Sahu, Aged About 42 Years, 2 - Baniya @ Mahettar S/o Shivdayal Aged About 57 Years, Applicant No.1 and 2 are R/o Village Darra, Police Station At Present Gidhori, Civil And Rev. District Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---Applicants

Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Baloda, Civil And Rev. District Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent

1 - Patiram S/o Sakhiram Sahu Aged About 58 Years, 2 - Gorelal S/o Borra Sahu Aged About 45 Years, Applicant No.1 and 2 are R/o Village Darra, Police Station At Present Gidhori, Civil And Rev. District Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---Applicants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Baloda, Civil And Rev. District Baloda Bazar/ Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent

1 - Chand Singh S/o Gokul Gond Aged About 60 Years, 2 - Bablu @ Ram Sewak S/o Bedram Sahu Aged About 39 Years, Applicant No.1 and 2 are R/o Village Darra, Police Station At Present Gidhori, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar / Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh,

---Applicants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Baloda, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar / Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh,

--- Respondent

For Applicants : Mr. Ravikar Patel, along with Mr. Nitesh Sahu, Advocates For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 01/07/2025

1. The above captioned criminal revisions arise out of same impugned

order dated 15.07.2016, therefore, they are being heard together and

are disposed of by this common order.

2. The present revisions are filed under Section 397/401 of Code of

Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 15.07.2016 passed by

the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, (C.G.) in Criminal

Appeal No.09/2015 whereby the judgment dated 05.02.2015 passed

by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar

(C.G.) in Criminal Case No.947/2011 convicting the applicants under

Sections 452 and 363/149 IPC and sentencing them to undergo

rigorous for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- (each count) and R.I. for 3

years and fine of Rs.500/- (each count) respectively, and in default of

payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 1 month (on each count),

was affirmed while directing to sentences to run concurrently.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the complainant Ghasiyaram

(PW-02) lodged an FIR on 11.09.1994 alleging that on 10.09.1994 at

about 08:00 PM, a village meeting was convened in which the

complainant Ghasiyaram (PW-02) and his brother Ghasiram (PW-04)

were called. When they reached there, then the accused persons who

were present there, unanimously told them that his (Ghasiyaram) wife

Lakheshwari and her mother Jugalmati used to perform

witchcraft/black magic on the villagers due to which some of the

villagers have died. When the complainant told that he did not know

about the same and denied all the allegations, then the applicants and

other villagers reached to the house of the complainant and committed

marpeet with complainant's wife and his mother. On the basis of the

above background, offence were registered against the accused

persons. Thereafter, the victims were medically examined, and,

subsequently, spot map was prepared. During course of investigation,

statement of the victims and other witnesses were recorded. After due

investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and other

co-accused persons (total 22 accused persons out of which 10

accused persons have already died during trial), who abjured the

charge and pleaded non-guilty.

4. During Trial, on 21.12.2003, both the parties entered into compromise,

on the basis of which the accused persons were acquitted of the

charges under Sections 147, 148, 294, 509, 354, 506-B and 323 of the

IPC as the said offences are compoundable.

5. Learned Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence, convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned in

paragraph 2 of this judgment. The said judgment was challenged by

the applicants and co-accused persons in Criminal appeal, however,

the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 15.07.2016, dismissed the

appeal upholding the judgment passed by the learned JMFC. Hence,

this revision.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that he does

not want to challenge the conviction of the applicants but is

challenging the finding of sentence part, which, according to him, is on

higher side. He further submits that during trial, out of total accused

persons, 10 accused persons have already died. Further, the

complainant is not willing to prosecute the case and therefore, both the

parties have entered into compromise before the Lok Adalat on

21.12.2003 as a result of which the applicants have already been

acquitted of the charges which were framed against them as the said

charges were compoundable. It is further submitted that applicant

Chhedram has remained in jail for more than 9 months and other

applicants have remained in jail for more than 4 months during trial,

thereafter, they were granted bail by this Court vide order dated

22.07.2016 and 29.07.2016 and they have not misused the liberty

granted to them. It is further contended that the applicants have no

criminal antecedents, now they are in the age group of 55-90 years

and fine amount has already been deposited by them before the

concerned Trial Court. Further, they are facing the lis since 1994 i.e.

for more than 30 years. Therefore, it is prayed that the jail sentence

awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period already

undergone by them.

7. On the contrary, learned State Counsel supports the impugned

judgment passed by the learned JMFC and Appellate Court.

8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants

and perused the record.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of

complainant Ghasiyaram (PW-02), Lakheshwari Bai (PW-03),

Ghasiram (PW-04), Rajkumari (PW-07) supported with the other

evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the

finding recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate

Court being based on the evidence available on record is correct

finding. Thus, I hereby affirm the conviction of the applicants.

10.As regards the sentence part of the applicants, considering the facts

and circumstances of the case and particularly, the fact that on the

basis of compromise entered between the parties, the applicants have

already been acquitted from the charges which are compoundable,

further, the applicants have remained in jail for four months, they are

facing the lis since 1994 i.e. for more than 30 years, they have no

criminal antecedents, at present they all are aged about 55-90 years,

further, the fine amount has already been deposited by them, I am of

the view that no fruitful purpose would be served to send the applicants

back to jail again, and ends of justice would be met if, while upholding

the conviction imposed upon the applicants, the jail sentence awarded

to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them i.e. 4

months. Further, both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

11. Consequently, the revisions are partly allowed. The conviction of

applicants under the aforementioned Sections is affirmed and they are

sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine

sentence is hereby affirmed.

12. Since the applicants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail

bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view

of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

Prakash