Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 July, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
Digitally 2025:CGHC:34112
signed by
RAVVA UTTEJ
KUMAR RAJU NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 847 of 2008
Ram Kumar S/o Shri Samay Lal Rajak, aged about 37 years, R/o Village - Tanera, Chauki -
Korbi, P.S. - Pasan, Tehsil - Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.)
... Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Pasan, Tehsil Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate.
For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
18.07.2025
1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 10.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Katghora District- Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 12/2007
whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
U/S 436 of I.P.C. R.I. for 02 years with fine of
Rs. 2,000/-, in default of
payment of fine to undergo
S.I. for 03 months.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.11.2006, at 5 pm the appellant
stopped a truck in front of the hotel of complainant- Mohru Singh who
used to run a hotel in a hut in village Tanera, and the accused
demanded money from the driver, so that he can drink alcohol and the
driver has given him Rs. 25/-, the accused then told him to eat food and
then go and the driver replied to him that he will come after having a
bath, and the accused/appellant said him that you will run away. The
complainant Mohru Singh came in defence of the driver by saying that
no he will not run away. The accused/appellant being infuriated by the
complainant, abused him by using filthy words and warned him that he
will lit up his hotel and by saying that he lit a matchstick, took a log
which was already burning and then he set the complainant's hut like
hotel ablaze. Since his hotel got burnt, the complainant's Rs 5000/-
worth of goods were damaged. Thereafter, the complainant Mohru
Singh went to the Police Station, Pasan and lodged an F.I.R against
the accused/appellant and on the basis of the said complaint, the
police started investigating the case and registered the case under
Section 436 of IPC at Chauki -Korbi and then Police Station Pasan.
3. Thereafter, the accused was taken into custody and the statement of
the accused person/appellant and other relevant witnesses were
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of due and
necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Katghora and the case was committed to the
Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) for offence
under Section 436 of IPC.
4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as
many as 06 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded
innocence and false implication in the case. However, he adduced 02
witnesses in his defence.
5. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted
and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of
this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no offence under
Section 436 of IPC is made out against the appellants because most of
the witnesses were hostile and the learned trial Court relied upon only
interested witnesses. The appellant was Up-Sarpanch at that time and
still, he has sent a notice to the complainant for illegally selling the wine
in his hotel and captured the government land to make hotel, that is
why the complainant has lodged false report against the appellant with
the help of interested witnesses Haribhajan and Shivbhajan. The
learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary
evidence properly. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence is liable to be set aside.
Alternatively, he submits that the incident took place
in the year 2006, this appeal is pending since 2008,
at that time the accused/appellant was aged about
37 years, now he is aged more than 55 years; he
has remained in jail for about 21 days, he has never
misused the liberty while being on bail, as such in
the interest of justice the appellant may be
sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned
judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated
the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present
accused/appellant, so this appeal is being devoid of any merit and is
liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost
circumspection.
9. It is clear from record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial
Court framed charge against the appellant under Section 436 of IPC
and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned
trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 436 of IPC and
sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this
judgment.
10. Mohru Singh (PW/01) the complainant has stated that in village Tanera,
he is having a hut where he lives with his family and there he runs hotel
for his livelihood, his hotel is situated near Beejdand Barrier and the
same was set ablaze by the accused/appellant. On 15.11.2006 at about
4 pm the accused/appellant came to his hotel and ordered him to cook
chicken for him and the complainant was cooking the same. The
appellant used to stop the truck carrying coal which passes by the
complainant's hotel and he used to say them to spend their money for
food in the hotel, but he stopped one truck driver viz. Prashant who was
staying in his hotel and in that truck the son of the complainant was
also there as he works for the truck driver, after stopping the truck, the
accused told the driver to have food and then go, the driver replied him
that he will come after having bath, to which the appellant said him that
you will run away, the complainant came to defence of the driver by
saying that no he will not run away. The accused/appellant being
infuriated by the complainant, abused him by using filthy words and
warned him that he will lit up his hotel and by saying that he lit a
matchstick, however the matchstick did not lit up, as such he took a log
which was already burning, he then threw the same over the hut like
hotel of the complainant and set it ablaze. The complainant denied the
suggestion of the defence that he used to run alcohol shop in his hut
like hotel.
11. Shivbhajan Singh (PW/02), Shivkumar (PW/03), Smt. Rambai (PW/04)
have supported the statement of the complainant Mohru Singh
(PW/01). O.P. Singh (PW/06) prepared Nuksani Panchnama memo (Ex.
P/09) and as per this memo, the complainant suffered as loss of Rs.
5,000/-. The learned trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence and rightly convicted the accused/appellant
under Section 436 of IPC. As such, the conviction of the appellant is
hereby maintained.
12. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year
2006 and this appeal is pending since 2008. The appellant is now aged
more than 50 years; and he has remained in jail for about 21 days, he
did not misuse the liberty so granted to him while being on bail, thus
considering the fact that the incident took place in the year 2006 and
the total detention period of the accused/appellant, this Court is of the
opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends
of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to the period
already undergone by him under Section 436 of IPC.
13. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining
conviction of the appellant under Section 436 of IPC, he is sentenced to
the period already undergone by him in the aforesaid Section. The
impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent.
14. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the
appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.
25,000/- in the like amount before the court concerned forthwith, which
shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking
that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant
judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of
notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
15. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back
immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary
action.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
U. K. Raju
