Chattisgarh High Court
Chanesh Ram Rathiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:9939
Digitally
NAFR
signed by
SOURABH
SOURABH PATEL
PATEL Date:
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
2025.03.04
10:53:57
+0530
CRA No. 53 of 2007
• Chanesh Ram Rathiya S/o Munnu Ram Rathiya, Aged
about 30 years, R/o Village Gindola Ramayan Depot, P.S.
Bhupdeopur, District- Raigarh (C.G.).
... Appellant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh through District-Magistrate, Raigarh
(C.G.).
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
27/02/2025
1 The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 17.11.2006 passed
by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh
(C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 42/2006 whereby the learned
4th Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the
appellant as under :
Conviction Sentence
U/s 326 of IPC R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.
200/-; in default of payment of
fine amount additional R.I. for
2
01 month.
U/s 341 of IPC R.I. for 03 months.
U/s 323 of IPC R.I. for 06 months.
(All the sentences were directed to run concurrently)
2 The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that 07.11.2005 at
about 7:00 Pm in Village Gindola the cattle businessmen
were standing in the village and written their names to one
Bodhan Das. On the same day, at about 9 Pm, the cattle
businessmen came and told that the appellant was
quarreling with them though the villagers namely Bodhan
Das, Nirmal Prasad, Heth Ram were went to settle the
matter and after settling they were went their home.
Thereafter the appellant caught hold the victim namely
Chamrudas and covered his face with cloth and took him
near the fertilizer deep land (Khatu Gadda) and assaulted
him with knife in his chest though the victim has felt
unconscious. After coming into conscious the victim came
his house and told the matter to son Ram Das and other
family members. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the
Police Station Bhupdeopur and offence was registered
against the present appellant under Sections 341, 323, 307
and 506-B of IPC.
3 During the course of trial, in order to bring home the
offence, the victim has examined as many as 17 witnesses
and exhibited 16 documents. The statement of the
appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing
against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in
the case.
4 After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 17.11.2006, learned
trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence
punishable under Sections 307 and 506-B and convicted
3
and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned
in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.
5 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
he is not pressing the appeal so far as it relates to the
conviction part of the judgment and would confine his
argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to
him, the incident is said to have taken place in the year
2005, and thereby more than 19 years have rolled by since
then. At present, the appellant is aged about more than 49
years and the appellant has already remained in jail for
about 03 months, and no useful purpose would be served
in again sending him to jail, therefore, in the interest of
justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed
upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone
by him.
6 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State,
supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the
arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for appellant.
7 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record including the impugned judgment.
8 Having gone through the material available on record and
the evidence of the witnesses Ramdas (PW-1), Baratbai
(PW-2), Hethram (PW-3), Navchand Patel (PW-6), Dr. D.K.
Tandon, Smt. Vimla (PW-15), Dr. A.M. Gupta (PW-17),
establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime in
question. This Court does not see any illegality in the
findings recorded by the Trial Court as regards conviction
of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections
326, 341 and 323 of IPC.
9 As regards sentence, keeping in view the facts that the
incident had taken place on 07.11.2005 about more than
19 years ago and further considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fact
4
that the appellant has no previous criminal record and he
has already remained in jail for about 03 months, this
court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be
served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone
by him.
10 In view of the above consideration, I do not feel it
appropriate to send back the appellant to jail. Hence, the
appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by
him i.e., about 03 months instead of suffering rigorous
imprisonment for 03 years for the offence punishable under
Section 326, for 03 months for the offence punishable U/s
341 and for 06 months for the offence punishable U/s 323
of IPC. However, the fine amount of Rs. 200/- imposed
upon the appellant by the trial Court for the offence
punishable under Section 326 of IPC is hereby enhanced to
Rs. 10,000/- which shall be payable by the appellant,
failing which the appellant shall be liable to undergo R.I.
for 06 months. Fine, if any, deposited by the appellant shall
be adjusted in the fine imposed/enhanced by this Court
today.
11 Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent
indicated above.
12 Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a
further period of 6 months as per requirement of Section
437-A of the Cr.P.C.
13 Record of the trial Court be sent back along with a copy of
this judgment forthwith for information and necessary
action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Sourabh P.
[ad_1]
Source link