Chattisgarh High Court
Mohan Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
SOURABH
2025:CGHC:12699
SOURABH PATEL
NAFR
PATEL Date:
2025.03.19
15:18:26
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 164 of 2008
• Mohan Sahu S/o Mehattar, Aged about 37 years, R/o
Raikona, Police Station Sarsiwa, District-Raipur (C.G.).
...Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sarsiwa,
District- Raipur (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe,
Advocate.
For State/Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
17/03/2025
1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 15.01.2008 passed
by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda
Bazar, District-Raipur (C.G.) in S.T. No. 01/2007 whereby
the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and
sentenced the appellant as under :
Conviction Sentence
R.I. for 05 years with fine of Rs.
1000/-; in default of payment
U/s 326 of IPC
of fine amount additional R.I. for
04 months.
R.I. for 02 years with fine of Rs.
500/-; in default of payment of
U/s 324 of IPC
fine amount additional R.I. for
02 month.
(Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently)
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.01.2007
at about 01:30 Pm, one Santram Sahu R/o Village Raikona
lodged the FIR against the appellant herein in respect of the
incident which was occurred on the same day. The FIR was
lodged inter-alia on the allegations that on 06.01.2007,
appellant assaulted the victims namely Santram Sahu and
his wife namely Noni Bai with the help of Tangia on the
pretext that he was having suspicion that his daughter had
received burn injuries on account of certain acts committed
by the victims. The police have completed the investigation
and on the basis of report lodged by the victims, an offence
was registered against the present appellant/accused U/s
506 Part-II and 307 of IPC.
3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the
offence, the victim has examined as many as 19 witnesses
and exhibited 19 documents. The statement of the
appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing
against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in
the case
4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 15.01.2008, learned
trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 506 Part-II and 307 and
convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the
opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the
present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the
impugned judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not
want to press this appeal on merits and confines his
argument only on sentence part. He submits that the
appellant is now aged about more than 54 years of age and
has family responsibilities and he has already remained in
jail for about 01 year 09 months. The incident took place in
the year 2007 and since then the appellant is facing the lis.
This appeal is pending since 2008. Hence, considering all
these facts, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to
the period already undergone by him in the interest of
justice.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State,
supported the impugned judgment and opposed the
arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
including the impugned judgment.
8. Having gone through the material available on record and the
statements of Sudama (PW-1), Jagatram (PW-2), Badri Sahu
(PW-4), Peelaram (PW-5), Moolchand (PW-6), Jagatram (PW-
7), Dr. Suresh Kumar (PW-9), Santram Sahu (PW-11), Noni
Bai (PW-12), Chetan (PW-13), Dr. Markam (PW-17), Dr.
Sunil Khemka (PW-19), establish the involvement of the
Appellant in the crime in question. This Court does not find
any illegality or infirmity in the finding recorded by the Trial
Court as regards the conviction of the appellant for offence
punishable under Sections 326 and 324 of IPC which is
based on evidence available on record and it is hereby
affirmed.
9. As regards the sentence part, the incident had taken place in
the year 2007 i.e. about 17 years ago. At that time, the
appellant was aged about 37 years and now he must be aged
about more than 54 years having family responsibility. The
appellant is facing the lis since 2008 and he has already
remained in jail for about 01 year 09 months. Taking into
consideration all these facts, it would not be appropriate to
send back the appellant to jail and the ends of justice would
serve if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by
him.
10. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for offence under
Sections 326 and 324 of IPC is maintained and the sentence
of RI for 5 years and 02 years is reduced to the period
already undergone by him i.e. 01 year 09 months. However,
the fine amount imposed upon the appellant by the trial
Court shall remain intact.
11. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
12. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case.
However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of
six months in view of the provisions contained in Section
437-A of the CrPC.
13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original
record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned
for information and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Sourabh P.
