Chattisgarh High Court
Monu Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 March, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 867 of 2016
1 - Monu Singh Thakur S/o Raghunath Singh Thakur Aged About 30 Years
Digitally 2 - Lalla Singh @ Dharmendra Singh Thakur S/o Raghunath Singh Thakur Aged
signed by
ANJANI About 21 Years
KUMAR
ALLENA 3 - Rakesh Singh @ Chhotu Singh S/o Raghunath Singh Thakur Aged About 19
Date:
2025.03.06
17:15:15 Years
+0530
4 - Vikku @ Gaurav Singh Thakur S/o Ajay Singh Thakur Aged About 22 Years
All R/o Kududand, Mitti Teela Mohalla, P.S. Civil Lines, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its District Magistrate, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Applicants : Shri Achyut Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Smt. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer.
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
Order on Board
05/03/2025
Heard.
1. The present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
06.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur
C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.158/2015 & 159/2015, whereby the learned
appellate Court has dismissed both the appeals filed by the applicants
herein, while affirming the judgment 18.09.2015 passed by the Court of
J.M.F.C., Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.670/2012 convicting the
2
applicants under Sections 323/34 (on two counts) and 325/34 of IPC
and sentencing them to undergo RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.1000/-
each on two counts and in default thereof, to undergo additional RI for
one month each under Section 323/34 IPC (on two counts) and to
undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to
undergo additional RI for one month each under Section 325/34 of IPC,
Both the learned Courts, however, acquitted them of the charges under
Sections 294 and 506 Part-II of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.08.2012, complainant –
Basant Kumar Kashyap (P.W.1) lodged a report at Police Station Civil
Lines, Bilaspur stating therein that P.W.3 Chandan Kashyap came to
him and told about his dispute with applicant No.4 Vikku Thakur and in
the meanwhile the said applicant came over there along with the other
applicants armed with rod and lathi and started abusing the
complainant (P.W.1), Ashok Kashyap (P.W.2) and Chandan Kashyap
(P.W.3) and also assaulted them with rod and lathi, due to which, the
complainant party received injuries. On the basis of report, F.I.R. was
lodged vide Ex.P.1. During investigation, vide Ex.P.2 map was
prepared and the applicants were taken into custody.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. The applicants abjured the charges
and pleaded non-guilty.
4. The learned Court of JMFC and the appellate Court, after appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the
applicants as mentioned in Para 1 of this order. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to
press this revision on conviction part of the applicants but confines his
3
argument to the sentence part only, which according to him, is on
higher side. He further submits that the applicants remained in jail for
20 days, i.e., from 12.09.2012 to 20.09.2012 and then from 06.09.2016
to 16.09.2016, there are no criminal antecedents against them and
they are facing the lis since September, 2012, i.e. for more than 12
years. He also submits that fine amount of Rs.12,000/- imposed upon
them has been deposited before the trial Court, therefore, the jail
sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the period
already undergone by them.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the revision and
supported the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
8. Considering the statements of PW-1 Basant Kashyap, P.W.2 Ashok
Kashyap, P.W.3 Chandan Kashyap and that of medical evidence of
P.W.7 Dr. R. Jitpure (Radiologist) and P.W.11 P,K. Mitra and the other
evidence and material available on record, this Court is of the opinion
that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court being based on the evidence available on record is a
correct finding and I hereby affirm the said finding of conviction of
applicants.
9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case and also considering the fact that the applicants have
undergone 20 days jail sentence, they are facing the lis since
September, 2012 i.e. for more than 12 years, there are no criminal
antecedents against them, I am of the view that the ends of justice
would be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the
4
applicants, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period
already undergone by them. However, sentence of fine amount of
Rs.1000/- awarded under Section 325/34 IPC is enhanced to
Rs.3,000/- each while keeping in tact the fine amount of Rs.1000/-
imposed under Section 323/34 IPC (on two counts). Since the fine
amount of Rs.12,000/- awarded under the said Sections has already
been deposited, therefore, the remaining fine amount of Rs.8,000/-,
enhanced by this Court, shall be deposited before the trial Court as
early as possible. Out of the total fine amount of Rs.20,000/-, a sum of
Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1 Basant Kashyap and Rs.4,000/-
each shall be paid to other victims, i.e., P.W.2 Ashok Kashyap and
P.W.3 Chandan Kashyap. It is made clear that the default sentence
and the direction to run sentences concurrently shall remain in tact.
10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining
conviction of the applicants under Section 323/34, 323/34 and 325/34
of IPC, the sentence imposed thereunder by the trial Court as well as
the Appellate Court is hereby modified and they are sentenced to the
period already undergone by them.
11. It is reported that the applicants are on bail. Their bail bonds are not
discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a
further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Anjani
[ad_1]
Source link