Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sharmila Roy vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 May, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:20994
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1075 of 2007
Smt. Sharmila Roy W/o Dr. Suraj Narayan Roy, Aged About 30 Years
R/o Khadpadipara, Janjgir, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir
Champa Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir
Champa Chhattisgarh. ,
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Judgment On Board
07/05/2025
The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and
validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
21.11.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa in ST
No.45/2007 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as
under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 452 of Indian Penal RI for two years, pay a fine of
Code. Rs.500/- and in default thereof to
suffer additional RI for 03 months.
Under Section 323/34 of Indian RI for 03 months.
Penal Code.
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.9.2006 at around
11 o'clock complainant Maharathi Baghel was coming in a tractor
loaded with bricks for construction of his house. However, the said
tractor-trolley got stuck in the vacant land of accused SN Roy, so the
bricks were being unloaded there only. At that time, accused SN Roy
came to the house of the complainant and abused his wife Meenakshi
filthily. When the complainant reached his house, he too was abused
filthily by SN Roy. Accused SN Roy also attempted to attack on his
head with a Ghan carried by the labourers but due to intervention by
the labourers, SN Roy went back to his house. However, after some
time he came back with his wife carrying three feet long sword and
entered the house of the complainant for assaulting him. The persons
present there pacified the matter or else he would have assaulted him.
Wife of accused SN Roy i.e. the present appellant also threw bricks
and stones into the courtyard of the complainant. They beat wife and
child of the complainant. After completion of investigation, charge sheet
was filed before the concerned Magistrate against the accused
persons and the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections
294, 506 Part-II, 452, 323/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 {in
short "the Act of 1989"), to which the accused persons abjured their
guilt and prayed for trial.
03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 12
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. Accused Sharmila Roy examined herself as DW-
1 and investigating officer Ajay Dubey as DW-2.
04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court
while acquitting them of charges under Sections 294, 506 Part-II of IPC
and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989, convicted and sentenced the
accused persons as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this
appeal by the accused persons. However, during pendency of this
appeal, accused/appellant No.1 SN Roy died and therefore, it stood
abated in respect of appellant No.1 vide order dated 18.8.2015.
05. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. Learned
trial Court did not appreciate the contradiction and omission in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses. No independent witness was
examined by the prosecution. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate
the fact that a counter case was registered against the complainant
party and the same was still pending. The medical report does not
support the prosecution case. Therefore, the impugned judgment is
liable to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges.
Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
accused/appellant SN Roy, against whom main allegations are there,
has already expired and appeal in respect of him stood abated; the
present appellant is a woman having no criminal antecedents; she was
on bail during trial and even during pendency of this appeal and never
misused the liberty; at the time of incident she was 30 years of age and
at present is of about 48 years, therefore, instead of sending her jail
she may be sentenced with enhanced fine amount.
06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the
contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon
minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly
convicted and sentenced by the appellant 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 accused
persons were charged under Sections 294, 506(2), 452, 323/34 of IPC
and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 and after appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence, learned trial Court while acquitting the accused
persons of the charges under Sections 294, 506(2) of IPC and Section
3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989, convicted and sentenced them under
Sections 452 and 323/34 of IPC. It also transpires from the record that
as during pendency of this appeal, accused/appellant SN Roy died on
23.6.2015, the instant appeal in respect of this appellant stood abated.
09. PW-1 Maharathi Baghel, complainant, states that on the date of
incident the tractor loaded with bricks got stuck in the mud and when
he asked the labourers to unload half of the bricks there, accused Dr.
Suraj Narayan Roy entered his courtyard and objected to unloading of
bricks there. He further states that accused SN Roy abused him filthily
and assaulted him with a Ghan which hit his left palm. During this
process, accused Sharmila Roy came out of her house to the spot
abusing him filthily and started throwing pieces of bricks lying in the
lane at his wife Nisha Meenakshi, son Sahil and himself as a result of
which they sustained injuries.
10. PW-2 Smt. Nisha Meenakshi Baghel, PW-3 Dinesh Kumar, PW-5
Ganesh Charan Tandon, PW-7 Radha Bai and PW-8 Makram have
duly supported the statement of the complainant and stated that it is
the accused persons who committed house-tresspass and assaulted
the complainant party. All these witnesses remained firm in their cross-
examination.
11. PW-6 Dr. Arvind Dwivedi medically examined the complainant
Maharathi, his son Sahil and his wife Meenakshi Baghel and noticed
simple injuries on their body vide medical reports Exs.P/5, P/6 and P/7.
However, he did not notice any fracture sustained by any of the injured.
12. Considering the unrebutted evidence of the complainant and
other witnesses coupled with medical evidence, as discussed above, it
is clear that it is the accused/appellant Sharmila Roy who committed
house-trespass in the house of the complainant with intention to cause
hurt to him, beat his wife and child and also thew pieces of bricks at
them as a result of which they suffered simple injuries. As such, her
conviction under Sections 452 and 323/34 of IPC recorded by the
learned trial Court being based on proper appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence on record needs no interference by this Court
and this finding is hereby affirmed.
13. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, the fact that the incident took place in the year 2006, appeal
is pending since 2007; during pendency of appeal the main accused
SN Roy expired and appeal in respect of him stood abated; the
appellant is a woman; she was on bail during trial and even during
pendency of this appeal and never misused the liberty; she has no
criminal records; at the time of incident she was 30 years of age and at
present is of about 48 years, this Court is of the opinion that though
she has not remained in jail for a single day but at this stage it would
not be proper to send her jail and the ends of justice would be met if
she is sentenced to till rising of the court and directed to pay enhanced
fine amount of Rs.10,000/- under Section 452 of IPC with default
sentence and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323/34 of IPC
with default sentence.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the
appellant awarded by learned trial Court under Sections 452 and
323/34 of IPC is hereby maintained. Her sentence under Section 452
of IPC is modified and she is sentenced to till rising of the Court and
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- whereas under Section 323 of IPC she is
directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. The fine amounts be deposited within
a period of two months from today or else she shall suffer RI for six
months and one month respectively. She is reported to be on bail,
therefore, her bail bonds shall continue for a period of six months from
today in view of provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
MOHD by MOHD
AKHTAR KHAN
AKHTAR Date:
2025.05.08
KHAN 15:28:26
+0530
Khan
