[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjay Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:9885
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 49 of 2017
Sanjay Yadav S/o Tonko Ram Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o
Village Jurudand, Police Station -Bagicha, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant.
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bagicha, District-
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Manikpuri, Advocate (Legal Aid)
For the State/Respondent : Mr. Rishiraj Pithawa, Dy. GA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Judgment on Board
25.02.2026
1. Challenge in the criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.2016 passed in
Session Trial No.17/2016, by which, learned Session Judge,
Jashpur, (CG), convicted the appellant for offence punishable
under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo
maximum RI for 08 months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to
undergo additional RI for 01 month.
2. The present appeal was filed in the year 2017 and the
appellant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated
12.01.2017.
3. On day before yesterday, case was called out for hearing, but
no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and case was pass
over. Today, when the case is taken up for hearing, again no
one appeared on behalf of appellant to press this appeal,
therefore, I requested for assistance from a Counsel of the
High Court Legal Services Committee. Mr. Rakesh Kumar
Manikpuri, Advocate is nominated to assist the Court on behalf
of the appellant.
4. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the
depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted by Mr. Rakesh
Manikpuri, Advocate and learned State Counsel. In view of
decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Surya Baksh
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 222, I do not
consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh
notice to the appellant as his interest has been duly taken care
of by nominating another Counsel from the High Court Legal
Services Committee.
5. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 24-10-2015, the
appellant and his wife have assaulted the complainant/victims
(Kunti Yadav & Purendar Yadav) by means of stick and also
abused them in filthy language. Due to assault, victim
(Purendar Yadav) suffered injury on his head, he was taken to
the hospital for treatment. Based upon report lodged by the
complainant (Kunti Yadav), FIR was registered against the
appellant and his wife for offence punishable under Sections
294, 506-B, 323, 307 r/w 34 of IPC.
6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet/chalan was filed
and based upon which, trial Court framed the charges against
the appellant.
7. In order to prove the guilt of appellant, prosecution examined
total 09 witnesses and their statements were recorded.
However, no defence witnesses was examined. Statement of
appellant (accused) was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in
which he pleaded innocence and false implication.
8. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the
appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment.
Hence, this appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is not
pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of
impugned judgment and he confined his argument to the
quantum of sentence only. He submits that incident had taken
place in the year 2015, there was no pre-meditation and on the
spur of moment incident had taken place; it was first offence of
appellant and, thereafter, he had not indulged himself in any
other criminal activity. Out of 08 months of jail sentence,
appellant has already served about 05 months and 07 days of
substantive jail sentence, hence, no purpose would be served
by again sending the appellant to jail after a lapse of about 10
years. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to
appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by
him.
10. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the prayer
of learned counsel for appellant, would submit that looking to
the injury suffered by victim, leniency should not be shown to
appellant herein.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.
12. It is pertinent to mention here that testimony of the
injured/victim (Purendar Yadav/PW3) is duly corroborated by
his wife PW-2/Smt. Kunti Yadav. The injury sustained by the
victim stand further corroborated by the medical evidence
available on record including the deposition of PW-9/Dr.
Mithilesh Minj (medical officer).
13. Though learned counsel for appellant has not challenged
conviction of appellant and restricted his prayer only with
regard to reduction of sentence as undergone, but still this
Court deems it appropriate to examine the impugned judgment
of the Court below. This Court has meticulously perused
impugned judgment and evidence on record.
14. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court after
elaborately considering evidence of each individual material
witness, has observed that prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt against appellant herein and that
being the position, this Court is the opinion that the trial Court
has not committed any mistake in arriving at a conclusion that
appellant is guilty for offence punishable under Section 325 of
IPC.
15. As regards quantum of sentence, considering the fact that
incident took place in the year 2015, i.e ,about 10 years have
elapsed, appellant and victims are relative and there was
previous dispute between them regarding partition of land, out
of 08 months of jail sentence, appellant has already served
about 05 months and 07 days of substantive jail sentence, he is
not having any previous/other criminal antecedents, this Court
is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in
sending the appellant to jail at this point of time for undergoing
remaining period of sentence and ends of justice would be met
if the sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of
appellant under Section 325 of IPC is hereby affirmed;
sentence imposed upon the appellant under aforesaid Section
is hereby modified and reduced to the period already
undergone by him. However, fine amount imposed by the trial
Court upon the appellant shall remain intact.
17. Record of this case alongwith copy of this judgment be sent
back immediately to trial Court concerned for compliance and
necessary action.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
JUDGE
J/-
