[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Naresh Kumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:17983
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 139 of 2008
Naresh Kumar S/o Shri Deosharan Singh Gond, aged about 27 years,
Cultivate, R/o Village Tengni, Police Station Patna, Distt. Korea
(Chhattisgarh).
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through S.O. Police Station Patna District Korea
(Chhattisgarh)
... Respondent
For Appellant : None.
For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Judgment On Board
21/04/2025
The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.1.2008 passed by
Sessions Judge, Koriya (Baikunthpur) in ST No.41/2006 whereby the
appellant stands convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo RI for 01 year and pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof to suffer
additional RI for 02 months.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.9.2005 when
complainant/victim Uddyan Singh (PW-1) was at his house, two persons
came to him and told that he (PW-1) has been called by Sant Singh. While he
2
was going on foot towards the house of Sant Singh, on the way the accused
persons Premshankar, Nasrulla @ Ranga and Naresh Kumar intercepted
him, abused him filthily, threatened him of life and thereafter, accused Naresh
Kumar assaulted him with knife on his neck. However, on hue and cry being
raised by him, PW-4 Chhatrapal and PW-6 Vanshroop reached the place of
occurrence and seeing them the accused persons fled from there. The
complainant lodged FIR on the same day against the accused persons vide
Ex.P/1. He was got medically examined by Dr. AK Sharma (PW-5) vide report
Ex.P/6. Spot maps were prepared and statements of the witnesses were
recorded. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet
against the accused persons before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate
under Sections 341, 294, 506, 307, 34 of IPC.
03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 307/34, 294, 341/34
of IPC against accused Premshankar and Nasrulla whereas accused Naresh
Kumar was charged under Sections 307, 294, 341/34 of IPC. The accused
persons abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.
04. 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.
05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court by the impugned
judgment acquitted accused Premshankar and Nasrulla of all the charges
and convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant Naresh Kumar as
mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
3
06. Pursuant to the order dated 25.3.2025 whereby non-bailable warrant
was issued against the appellant for his production before this Court today,
the appellant appears through video conferencing with the aid of District
Legal Services Authority, Koriya. He is not pressing this appeal insofar as it
relates to his conviction under Section 324 of IPC, however, submits that he
has remained in jail for about a month, he was on bail during trial as also
during pendency of this appeal and never misused the liberty granted to him,
therefore, his jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.
07. 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.
08. Heard the appellant and the State counsel and perused the material
available on record.
09. Though the appellant filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court. However,
at this juncture, the appellant is not pressing this appeal in relation to his
conviction and is praying for reduction of the sentence to the period already
undergone by him. While dealing with such situation, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Jeetu @ Jitendra and others Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2013) 11 SCC 489 held as under:
“When a convicted person prefers an appeal, he has the
legitimate expectation to be dealt with by the Courts in
accordance with law. That apart, he has intrinsic faith in the
4criminal justice dispensation system and it is the sacred duty
of the adjudicatory system to remain alive to the said faith. He
has embedded trust in his counsel that he shall put forth his
case to the best of his ability assailing the conviction and to do
full justice to the case. That apart, a counsel is expected to
assist the Courts in reaching a correct conclusion. Therefore, it
is the obligation of the Court to decide the appeal on merits
and not accept the concession and proceed to deal with the
sentence, for the said mode and method defeats the
fundamental purpose of the justice delivery system. We are
compelled to note here that we have come across many cases
where the High Courts, after recording the non- challenge to
the conviction, have proceeded to dwell upon the
proportionality of the quantum of sentence. We may clearly
state that the same being impermissible in law should not be
taken resort to. It should be borne in mind that a convict who
has been imposed substantive sentence is deprived of his
liberty, the stem of life that should not ordinarily be stenosed,
and hence, it is the duty of the Court to see that the cause of
justice is subserved with serenity in accordance with the
established principles of law.”
10. Bearing in mind the aforesaid settled principle of law, this Court
proceeds to decide the appeal on merits.
11. There were total three accused persons who were put to trial. Accused
Premshankar and Nasrulla were charged under Sections 307/34, 294, 341/34
of IPC whereas accused Naresh Kumar was charged under Sections 307,
294, 341/34 of IPC. Learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence on record, acquitted accused Premshankar and
Nasrulla of all the charges and while acquitting accused/appellant Naresh
Kumar of the charges leveled against him, held him guilty under Section 324
5
of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 01 year, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in
default thereof to suffer additional RI for 02 months.
12. As regards conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 324 of
IPC, Uddyan Singh (PW-1), who is the complainant/victim, has categorically
stated in his deposition that on the date of incident while he was going
towards the house of Sant Singh afoot, the accused/appellant along with
other co-accused waylaid him and accused Naresh assaulted him with a knife
on his neck. When the complainant raised alarm, Banshroop and Chhatrapal
came to his rescue and thereafter the accused persons fled from the spot. He
proved the fact that he lodged the FIR (Ex.P/1) which bears his signature
from A to A part. In cross-examination he denied all the adverse suggestions
of the defence and remained firm on his statement that the accused Naresh
inflicted knife injury on him.
13. PW-2 Rambai and PW-3 Ratan Singh have turned hostile and not
supported the prosecution case. PW-4 Chhatrpal and PW-6 Banshroop are
though not eyewitnesses to the incident but they stated that hearing the
scream of Uddyan Singh they reached the place of occurrence, saw him lying
in injured condition and he narrated the incident to them. The version of the
complainant also finds due corroboration from the medical evidence of PW-5
Dr. AK Sharma who examined him on 10.9.2005 and noticed an incised
wound on his neck of size 2 ½ x ½ x ½ inch. In his opinion, the said injury
was caused by hard and sharp object within 08 hours of examination. He has
proved his medical report of Ex.P/6.
14. In view of the unrebutted evidence of the complainant/victim which
finds support from the promptly lodged FIR, the evidence of PW-4
Chhatrapal, PW-6 Banshroop and PW-5 Dr. AK Sharma, who noticed
6
corresponding injury on the neck of the victim, this Court is of the opinion that
learned trial Court was fully justified in holding that it is the accused/appellant
who voluntarily caused injury by a dangerous weapons knife on the neck of
the victim and convicting him under Section 324 of IPC. Therefore, the finding
of conviction recorded by the learned trial court is hereby affirmed.
15. So far as sentence part of the accused/appellant is concerned,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the
incident took place; he has no criminal record; he remained in jail for about a
month, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in
keeping him behind the bars any longer and the ends of justice would be
served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone while keeping the
fine amount imposed on him with default sentence by trial Court intact.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction
of the appellant under Section 324 of IPC, his substantive jail sentence is
hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine
imposed on him by learned trial Court with default sentence shall remain
intact. He is reported to be in jail pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued
by this Court vide order dated 25.3.2025, therefore, he be set free forthwith if
not required in any other case. However, in view of provisions of Section 481
of BNSS, 2023, he shall execute a bail bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- to
ensure his appearance before the higher Court as and when such Court
issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against this judgment
and such bond shall be in force for six months.
MOHD by
Digitally signed
MOHD
Sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
AKHTAR KHAN
AKHTAR Date:
KHAN 2025.04.24
10:20:43 +0530Judge
Khan
[ad_2]
Source link