Chattisgarh High Court
Jitendra Chelak And 3 Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 May, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:21727
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 621 of 2007
1. Jitendra Chelak, son of Bhagwat Chelak, aged about 34 years,
2. Dilip, son of Bhagwat Chelak, aged about 25 years,
3. Devanand, son of Bhagwat Chelak, aged about 32 years,
4. Bhagwat Chelak, son of Sukhru Chelak, aged about 55 years,
All are residents of Village-Muraithi, Police Station-Mandir
Hasaud, Distt. Raipur (CG)
... Appellants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Raipur, Distt.
Raipur (CG)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Judgment On Board
09/05/2025
The appellants in this appeal are challenging the legality and
validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
09.07.2007 passed by 11th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in
ST No.450/2006 whereby each of the appellants stands convicted and
sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 323/34 of Indian RI for 06 months, pay a fine of
Penal Code for causing simple Rs.500/- and in default thereof to
injury to Mohardas suffer additional SI for 03 months.
Under Section 323/34 of Indian RI for 06 months, pay a fine of
Penal Code for causing simple Rs.500/- and in default thereof to
injury to Jama Bai. suffer additional SI for 03 months.
Under Section 323/34 of Indian RI for 06 months, pay a fine of
Penal Code for causing simple Rs.500/- and in default thereof to
injury to Dashmat Bai. suffer additional SI for 03 months.
Under Section 294 of Indian Penal To pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in
Code. default thereof to suffer SI for 03
months.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 9.3.2006 at around 5
pm the accused persons abused the complainant party filthily, beat
them with hands, fists and clubs as also threatened them of life. On
report being lodged, the police commenced investigation, the injured
persons were got medically examined and clubs and sticks used by the
accused persons in commission of the offence were seized. After
completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the
concerned jurisdictional Magistrate under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 of
IPC. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506(2),
323/34, 323/34 and 323/34 of IPC, which were abjured by them and
they prayed for trial.
03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 09
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. In their defence, they examined Deendayal as
DW-1 and Jambai 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 506(2) of IPC,
convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of this
judgment.
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 namely PW-1, PW-2 and PW-
3. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case.
According to Dr KS Rai (PW-6) the injuries suffered by the victims
could be caused due to fall on hard and rough object. No independent
witness was examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of all
the charges.
Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact the
incident took place in the year 2006; the appeal is pending since 2007;
that they were on bail during trial as also during pendency of this
appeal and never misused the liberty; they were in jail for 01 day; they
may be sentenced to the period already undergone by them.
06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the
contention of the appellants submits that the learned trial Court upon
minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly
convicted and sentenced by the appellants 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), 323/34, 323/34 and
323/34 of IPC, and after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, learned trial Court while acquitting them of the charge under
Section 506(2) of IPC, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in
para 1 of this judgment.
09. PW-1 Mohardas, injured complainant, states that on the date of
incident when he returned from his work to his house, he saw that all
the four accused persons were filthily abusing and beating his wife and
Bhabhi with hands and fists. On his intervention, he too was beaten by
accused persons. Accused Jitendra caught hold of his neck and
accused Bhagwat threw chilly powder in his eyes and then accused
Devanand beat him with club. He somehow snatched the club from
Devanand and started wielding it. He states that Johan, Premlal,
Pramila Bai, Jambai and Dashmat Bai have witnessed the incident.
10. PW-2 Jambai, PW-3 Dashmat Bai (injured) and PW-8 Johan who
are eyewitnesses to the incident have also supported the prosecution
case and stated about the manner in which the incident occurred
where the accused/appellants filthily abused and caused injury to
Mohardas, Jambai and Dashmat Bai. The aforesaid ocular evidence
also finds due corroboration from the medical evidence of Dr. KS Rai
(PW-6) who examined the injured Mohardas, Jambai and Dashmat Bai
and noticed corresponding injury on their body. In his opinion, the
injures were caused by hard and blunt object and were simple in
nature vide his reports Ex.P/2, P/3 & P/4 respectively. Thus, in view of
the specific and unrebutted ocular evidence of the injured witnesses
which is further fortified by the medical evidence, this Court is of the
opinion that learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants
under Section 323/34 of IPC on three counts and 294 of IPC for
causing simple hurt to Mohardas, Jambai and Dashmat Bai and
abusing them filthily to the annoyance of others.
11. 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; the appellants were on bail during trial and even
during pendency of this appeal and did not misuse the liberty; they
have remained in jail for 01 day; there is no minimum sentence
prescribed under Sections 323 and 294 of IPC; this Court is of the
opinion that at this stage no fruitful purpose would be served in sending
them back to jail and the ends of justice would be met if they are
sentenced to the period already undergone while keeping the fine
amount imposed on them by trial Court with default sentence intact.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the
appellants awarded by learned trial Court under Sections 323/34 on
three counts and 294 of IPC is hereby maintained and the substantive
jail sentence under Section 323/34 of IPC is reduced to the period
already undergone by them. However, the fine imposed on them by
trial court with default sentence shall remain intact. They are reported
to be on bail, therefore, their 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 Date:
2025.05.13
KHAN 16:41:56
+0530
Khan
