Chattisgarh High Court
Girwar Prasad And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 June, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
BHOLA
BHOLA NATH
NATH KHATAI
KHATAI Date:
2025.06.16
18:29:15
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 263 of 2025
1. Girwar Prasad S/o Sukhsagar Satnami, Aged About 55
Years R/o Village Rank, P.S. - Seepat, District - Bilaspur,
C.G.
2. Phekuram Alias Pappu, Aged About 22 Years, S/o Girwar
Ratre, Village Rank, P.S. - Seepat, District - Bilaspur, C.G.
... Appellants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through the PS Seepat, District
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
13/06/2025
1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been
preferred challenging the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 14.02.2012 passed by learned 5th
Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial
No.133/2010 whereby both the appellants have been
convicted and sentenced as under :
2
Conviction Sentence
Simple imprisonment for 1 month with
fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment
U/s 294 of IPC
of fine, additional imprisonment for
7days.
Simple imprisonment for 3 months
U/s 323/34 of with fine of Rs.100/-, in default of
IPC (3 times) payment of fine, additional
imprisonment for 7 days.
2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 25.05.2011 at
about 6:30 p.m., the appellants started abusing with
obscene words and assaulted complainant Indal with
wooden stick. When his wife Kumari Bai and two sons
Rameshwar and Rakesh tried to intervene, the appellants
assaulted them also with sticks. Subsequently, on the
report of the complainant, FIR was registered and after
completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against
the appellants.
3. So as to hold the appellants guilty, the prosecution has
examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 14
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 14.02.2012, learned
trial Court has acquitted the appellant of the offence
punishable under Section 506 (B) of IPC. However, the
appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the
offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the
present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is not
3
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 maximum
sentence imposed upon the appellants is SI for 3 months,
the appellants are father and son, the incident is said to
have taken place on 25.05.2011 i.e. about 14 years back;
therefore, in the interest of justice, the jail sentence of the
appellants may be set aside.
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
record.
8. Having gone through the material available on record and
the statements of the complainant Indal (PW-3), his sons
Rameshwar (PW-4) & Rakesh (PW-7) and Dr. C. S. Uikey
(PW-2), the involvement of the appellants in the crime in
question is established. This Court does not see any
illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as
regards conviction of the appellants for the offence
punishable under Section 294 & 323/34 of IPC.
9. As regards sentence, keeping in view the sort sentence
imposed upon the appellants i.e. 3 months simple
imprisonment and also the fact that the incident took
place in the year 2011 thereby about 14 years have rolled
by since then and the appellants have no criminal
antecedent, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of
justice would be served if the jail sentence of the appellant
is set aside enhancing the fine amount.
10. Accordingly, maintaining the conviction of the appellants
4
under Sections 294 & 323/34 of IPC, their jail sentence
under the said sections is set aside. However, the fine
imposed upon the appellants is enhanced from Rs.100 to
Rs. 500/- u/s 294 IPC and from Rs.100 to Rs.1000 (3
times) u/s 323/34 IPC, which shall be payable within a
period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. In default of payment of fine amount, the
appellants shall be liable to undergo imprisonment for 20
days and 40 days respectively under Sections 294 &
323/34 of IPC. If any fine amount has already been
deposited, the same shall be adjusted.
11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent
indicated herein-above.
12. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue
for a further period of six months from today in terms of
Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
13. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment
be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary
action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
JUDGE
Khatai