Bhupendra Kumar Dimar @ Bhupendra @ Dadu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3039 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Bhupendra Kumar Dimar @ Bhupendra @ Dadu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 June, 2025

                                                           1




        Digitally
        signed by
        SOURABH
                                                                            2025:CGHC:24128
SOURABH PATEL

                                                                                              NAFR
PATEL   Date:
        2025.06.18
        17:40:03
        +0530


                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                             CRA No. 1626 of 2024

                       1. Bhupendra      Kumar     Dimar       @   Bhupendra      @    Dadu    S/o
                            Aatmaram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Lafarge Cement, Behind
                            Godam,    Hathkhoj,   Thana        Purani   Bhilai,   District-   Durg,
                            Chhattisgarh.
                       2. Nitesh Kumar @ Nitesh @ Purshottam Thakur S/o Teeju Ram
                            Thakur, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Lafarge Cement, Behind
                            Godam,    Hathkhoj,   Thana        Purani   Bhilai,   District-   Durg,
                            Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                   --- Appellants
                                                      versus

                       1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Purani Bhilai,
                            District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                  --- Respondent

For Appellants : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L.

1. Gopal Sahu @ Rayphal S/o Premlal Sahu, Aged About 23 Years, R/o House No. 559, Ward No. 1, Indirapara, Hathkhoj, P.S. Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---Appellant Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Purani Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (16.06.2025)

1. The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Durg, District - Durg (C.G.), in S.T. No. 117/2022 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under:-

Name of the Accused Conviction Sentence

1.) Bhupendra Kumar U/s 323/34 of R.I. for 01 year and Dimar @ Bhupendra @ IPC fine of Rs.1000/-, in Dadu. 2.)Nitesh Kumar default of payment, @ Nitesh @ Purshottam additional R.I. for 01 Thakur. 3.) Gopal Sahu month to each.

@ Rayphal U/s 307/34 of R.I. for 07 years and IPC fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment, additional R.I. for 03 months to each.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, Kunjram Gabel has filed a complaint on 19.03.2022 in Old Bhilai Police Station, stating that his elder brother Samaylal Gabel was attacked on 18.03.2022 at about 09:00 pm. As per the complaint, Samaylal had gone to Ajay Kirana Store to buy gutkha when the unknown persons allegedly abused him with obscene language, threatened to kill him, and assaulted him with hand, fists, and a knife before fleeing the scene. Upon receiving information

about the incident, Kunjlal reached the store and found his brother injured with a sharp-edged weapon wound in his abdomen bleeding profusely. Thereafter, Kunjlal along with others took Samaylal to Sector-9 Hospital for treatment. Based on the said complaint, an investigation was initiated. After the injured regained consciousness, his statement was recorded and the case was registered and after due investigation, appellants were arrested.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 45 documents. The statement of the accused/appellants was 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 29.07.2024, learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that they are not pressing the appeals so far as the conviction of the appellants are concerned and confine their argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to them, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2022, and thereby about more than 03 years have rolled by since then According to them, the appellants in CRA No.1626/2024 namely Bhupendra Kumar Dimar (A-1) and Nitesh kumar (A-2) have remained in jail for about 01 year 03 months and the appellant in CRA No. 1734/2024 namely Gopal Sahu has remained in jail for about 01 year 01 month, 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 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 statements of Bedaram (PW-1), Akash Soni (PW-2), Rakesh Kurmi (PW-3), Samaylal (PW-4), Kunjram (PW-5), Ramayan Singh Rajput (PW-6), Kushal Kumar Gabel (PW-7), Satyendra Shukla (PW-8), Dr.A.K. Nagdve (PW-9) and Dr.U.Jain (PW-10), establish the involvement of the accused/appellants in the crime in question. This Court does not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court as regards the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences.

9. As regards sentence, keeping in view the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 2022 about 03 years ago and also considering the fact that the appellants in CRA No.1626/2024 namely Bhupendra Kumar Dimar (A-1) and Nitesh kumar (A-2) have already remained in jail for about 01 year 03 months and the appellant in CRA No. 1734/2024 namely Gopal Sahu has remained in jail for about 01 year 01 month and they have liability of their family and since Samaylal is the sole victim, a distinct punishment under Section 323/34 IPC is not required. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the jail sentence imposed under the aforesaid Section is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants while keeping the finding and sentence with default stipulation awarded by the trial Court intact, therefore, their sentence is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

10. In view of the above consideration, the appeals are partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 of IPC, they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them, and the fine amount of Rs.1,000/-