Chattisgarh High Court
Harunnisha vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 June, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:25889
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 815 of 2008
Ramkumar Agarwal, son of Shiv Narayan Agarwal, aged about 61
years, resident of Muktidham, Ram Nagar, Supela, District Durg.
--- Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Supela, District Durg.
--- Respondent
CRA No. 821 of 2008
Harunnisha wife of Budharu @ Wajid Beg, aged about 45 years, R/o
Muktidham, Ramnagar, Supela, District Durg (CG)
— Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through : PS-Supela, District Durg (CG)
— Respondent
For Appellant in : None.
CRA No.815/2008.
For Appellant in : Mr. Uttam Pandey and Mr. Sunil Pandey,
CRA No.821/2008 Advocates.
For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate.
2
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Judgment On Board
19/06/2025
Both these appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 22.8.2008 passed by 12th Additional Sessions
Judge (FTC), Durg in ST No.212/2005 whereby the appellants stand
convicted and sentenced as under:
Appellant Ramkumar Agarwal
Conviction Sentence
u/s 307/149 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 7 years, fine of Rs.1000/-
and in default, to suffer SI for 6
months.
u/s 148 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 2 years, fine of Rs.500/- and
in default to undergo additional RI
for 3 months.
u/s 323/149 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 6 months.
Appellant Harunnisha
Conviction Sentence
u/s 307/149 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 7 years, fine of Rs.1000/-
and in default, to suffer SI for 6
months.
u/s 147 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 1 year.
u/s 323/149 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 6 months.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.5.2000 when
complainant Gopinath, Sub Inspector and RK Rai, Assistant Sub
3
Inspector were doing investigation into the gambling offence, at around
7.15 pm they received a secret information that accused Budharu and
Ramkumar are writing satta patti (gambling slips). Thereafter, Sub
Inspector Gopinath took witnesses Shambhunath and Ramprojan with
him and they all raided the hutment of the accused Budharu where
Ramkumar and Budharu were found writing satta patti and the same
were seized. At that time, accused Ramkumar, Budharu, Harunnisha,
Wahid and three other persons resisted the seizure proceedings and in
this process, accused Budharu, Ramkumar and Wahid assaulted RK
Rai with rod, lathi and club lying there with intention to kill him. When
Gopinath came to his rescue, he too was assaulted by accused
Ramkumar with a club. However, when Gopinath shot in the air, the
accused persons fled from there. Immediately thereafter injured RK Rai
was taken to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai. Gopinath prepared Dehati
Nalishi (Ex.P/1) on the spot and based on it, FIR (Ex.P/41) was
registered. During investigation statements of the witnesses were
record, weapon of offence i.e. lathi, club and rod were seized from the
possession of the accused persons. After completing usual
investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.
03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 212 of IPC
against accused Jitendra Patel and Santu Yadav and under Sections
147, 148, 186, 332/149, 333/149 & 307/149 of IPC against remaining
accused persons which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial.
4
04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 21
witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 of CrPC
wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing
against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false
implication. In defence, they examined Pradeep Jain and accused
Ramkumar as DW-1 and DW-2.
05. After hearing counsel for the parties and appreciation of material
available on record, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the
appellants as mentioned above. Co-accused Wahid and Budharu were
also convicted and sentenced under Sections 148, 323/149 and
307/149 of IPC. However, the other co-accused Jitendra, Santu Yadav,
Bablu Sao, Kalim Beg, Chand Beg, Jainuddin and Majid were acquitted
of all the charges. Hence these appeals by accused/appellants
Ramkumar Agarwal and Harunnisha.
06. As per jail report dated 6.1.2020, appellant Ramkumar Agarwal
was released from jail after completion of the entire sentence on
29.6.2012. In compliance of the order dated 12.3.2020 of this Court,
the State counsel submitted report dated 24.8.2020 of City
Superintendent of Police, Bhilai Nagar along with report of SHO,
Supela and death certificate of Ramkumar Agarwal which make it clear
that he died way back on 1.3.2013. These documents are taken on
record. No application for prosecuting this appeal on behalf of
Ramkumar Agarwal has been filed by his legal heirs/representatives.
5
07. In view of above, CRA No.815/2008 stands abated and is
dismissed as such.
08. Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.821/2008 submits
that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available
on record. Learned trial Court failed to consider that testimonies of PW-
6 Ram Parojan and PW-7 Shambhunath, who are so-called material
witness of the prosecution, is of no assistance since their court
statements run counter to the prosecution case and according to them,
neither they had gone to the place of incident along with police officers
nor had they seen the incident. He submits that the other factor which
creates doubt on the prosecution case is that according to PW-1 GN
Sand, the hut is constructed in 4 x 5 sqft area where the accused
persons may not be accommodated with chair and table at the same
time. As regards the present appellant, no specific role has been
attributed to her in commission of the offence. Learned trial Court has
not considered the ground raised by the appellant of there being
enmity between the appellant and the police officials. He further
submits that learned trial Court ought to have considered that neither
memorandum of the appellant was recorded nor recovery of any
incriminating article was effected from her exclusive possession.
Therefore, the impugned judgment in respect of the appellant is liable
to be set aside and she deserves to be acquitted of all the charges.
6
Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that if this
ultimately comes to the conclusion that conviction of the appellant is
proper, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case giving
rise to the incident which took place in the year 2000, the appeal is
pending since 2008, she remained in jail for three months; she was on
bail during trial and pendency of this appeal and never misused the
liberty; at present she is about 65 years of age, the jail sentence
imposed upon her may be reduced to the period already undergone.
09. 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.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
11. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that charge under
Sections 212 of IPC was framed against accused Jitendra Patel and
Santu Yadav and remaining accused persons were charged under
Sections 147, 148, 186, 332/149, 333/149 & 307/149 of IPC. After
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced the appellant Harnnisha u/s 307/149, 147 &
323/149 of IPC, accused Ramkumar Agarwal, Wahid and Budharu u/s
7
307/149, 148 & 323/149 of IPC. However, the other co-accused
Jitendra, Santu Yadav, Bablu Sao, Kalim Beg, Chand Beg, Jainuddin
and Majid were acquitted of all the charges.
12. PW-1 GN Sand, Sub Inspector, states that on the date of incident
he was posted at Police Station – Supela and went with Assistant Sub
Inspector RK Rai for investigation into gambling offence. After reaching
the indicated place, they tried to catch Budharu, Ramprasad Agarwal,
Wahid and Harunnisha and three other persons. However, during the
proceeding of seizure, the accused persons had a scuffle with them.
He states that Budharu assaulted with rod on the head of RK Rai
whereas Wahid, Ramkumar and other accused persons made assault
with lathi and Batta. He further states that during intervention, accused
Ramkumar Agarwal assaulted him with lathi on his left leg. When he
shot in the air with his service revolver, the accused persons fled from
the spot.
13. PW-18 Ramsharan Rai also stated that on the date of incident all
the accused persons assaulted him with iron rod, pipe and lathi as a
result of which he suffered injuries over his leg and knee and his 28
bones got fractured. In cross-examination he states that his entire body
up to mouth was plastered and though he had stated in his police
statement about the accused persons who made assault on him but if
the police could not get it or write it down, he cannot tell the reason.
8
14. PW-4 Dr. R. Ram examined injured RK Rai on 19.5.2000 and
found five lacerated wounds on his forehead, right parietal region of
head and both the legs and advised for x-ray vide Ex.P/9. Looking to
critical condition of RK Rai, he was admitted in ICU and he (PW-4)
informed the police about it vide Ex.P/10.
15. PW-11 Dr. Dhanjay Jha states that on 19.5.2000 RK Rai was
admitted in casualty ward of Sector-9 as he had suffered lacerated
wounds and fracture and was in critical condition. The injured RK Rai
remained hospitalized from 19.5.2000 to 9.6.2000. His bedhead ticket
is Ex.P/16.
16. PW-12 Dr. Lata Dewangan states that as per x-ray report of RK
Rai, she found injuries in left lung, multiple fractures and gave report
Ex.P/17.
17. From the unrebutted evidence of the injured RK Rai (PW-18)
which is duly supported by the evidence of PW-1 GN Sand and that of
the treating doctors, it is clear that on the date of incident, the
accused/appellant Harunnisha along with other co-accused persons
committed rioting, made an attempt to commit murder of RK Rai and
also caused simple injuries to complainant Gopinath, Sub Inspector.
Thus, the findings of learned trial Court holding the appellant
Harunnisha guilty under Sections 307/149, 147 and 323/149 of IPC
being based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
on record are hereby affirmed.
9
18. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, the fact that the accused/appellant is a woman of 65 years;
the incident took place way back in the year 2000; this appeal is
pending since 2008; she was on bail during trial and pendency of this
appeal and did not misuse the liberty; she has remained in jail for three
months, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be
served in sending her back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice
would be served if she is sentenced for the aforesaid offence to the
period already undergone by her.
19. In the result,
CRA No.815/2008 filed by accused/appellant Ramkumar
Agarwal stands abated and is dismissed as such.
CRA No.821/2008 filed by accused/appellant Harunnisha is
allowed in part. While maintaining her conviction under Sections
307/149, 147 and 323/149 of IPC, her jail sentence thereunder is
hereby reduced to the period already undergone by her.
However, the fine imposed on her with default sentence by trial
Court u/s 307/149 of IPC shall remain intact. She is reported to
be on bail, therefore, her bail bonds shall remain in operation for
a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section
481 of BNSS, 2023.
Sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
Digitally
signed by
MOHD
MOHD AKHTAR
AKHTAR
KHAN
KHAN
Date:
2025.06.25
Judge
15:16:31
+0530Khan