Chattisgarh High Court
Panch Ram @ Bono vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:28578
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 939 of 2016
1 - Panch Ram @ Bono S/o Aaju Ram Lahare Aged About 48 Years
2 - Aangan Bai W/o Panch Ram @ Bono Lahare Aged About 40 Years
3 - Itwari Bai W/o Prakash Lahare Aged About 35 Years
All are R/o Village Parsadih, Police Station Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-
Digitally
signed by Champa, Chhattisgarh., ... Applicants
ANJANI
KUMAR
ALLENA
versus
Date:
2025.06.30
18:11:42
+0530
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jaijaipur,
District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent
For Applicants : Shri Vinod Kumar Tekam, learned Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Sachidanand Yadav, learned P.L.
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)
Order on Board
27/06/2025
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
26.09.2016 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, C.G. in
Criminal Appeal No.93/2015 whereby the learned appellate Court
dismissed the appeal while upholding the judgment dated 23.04.2015
passed in Criminal Case No.298/2013 by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Jaijaipur convicting the applicants under Section 325/34 IPC
and sentencing them to suffer RI for one year and fine of Rs.200/- each
2
with default sentence of RI for one month. However, the learned
appellate Court set aside the conviction under Section 341/34 IPC and
the sentence of RI for one month with fine of Rs.100/- each and
acquitted the applicants of the offence under Section 341/34 of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.06.2013 some quarrel
took place between the son of complainant – Mankibai and nephew of
the applicants, thereafter she went to Sarpanch along with her
husband to report the same and returned and when they reached near
the house of Panchram (applicant No.1), at 10:00 pm, the applicants
stopped them and started abusing them and assaulted the complainant
over her head with stick and applicants No.2 & 3 have also assaulted
on the complainant with stick. On report being lodged to the above
effect by her (P.W.2), offence under Sections 294, 506-B, 323, 341/34
IPC under Crime No.153/13 has been registered at Police Station
Jaijaipur against the applicants.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur against the applicants, who abjured
the charge and pleaded non-guilty.
4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, convicted them under Section 325/34 & 341/34 IPC and
sentenced them to RI for one year and fine of Rs.200/- each with
default sentence of RI for one month and under Section 341/34 IPC,
sentence of RI for one month with fine of Rs.100/- each In appeal, the
Appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentence under Section
325/34 IPC but acquitted them of the offence under Section 341/34 of
IPC. Hence, this Revision by the present applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute arose
3
between the applicants and the complainant over the quarrel between
the children, which is trivial in nature. He further submits that the
applicants were in jail from 26.09.2016 to 04.10.2016 and thus
incarcerated jail sentence for a period of 9 days and during trial also
they were on bail and they never misused the liberty granted by the
Court, they have no criminal antecedents and that, they are facing the
lis since June, 2013, i.e., for more than 12 years. He also submits that
fine amount has been deposited. On these premises, he urged that
the jail sentence awarded to the applicants may be reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
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 statement of complainant PW-2 Mankibai supported by
the evidence of P.W.3 Santram and medical evidence of P.W.8 Dr. S.
Kachchap, who proved the M.L.C. report (Ex.P.9), according to which,
there is fracture of right ulna bone found on the complainant including
some bruises and contusions, and the other evidence and material
available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of
conviction 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.
9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case and also considering the fact that the applicants have
undergone 9 days, they are facing the lis since 2013 i.e. for more than
12 years, there are no criminal antecedents against them and that fine
4
has already been deposited, I am of the view that ends of justice would
be met if, while upholding the conviction imposed upon the applicants,
the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already
undergone by them.
10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining
conviction of the applicants under Section 325/34 of IPC, the sentence
imposed thereunder by the Appellate Court is hereby modified and they
are sentenced to the period already undergone by them. The fine
sentence is affirmed.
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