Chattisgarh High Court
Somar Sai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 August, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
Digitally
2025:CGHC:39515
signed by
RAVVA UTTEJ
KUMAR RAJU
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 381 of 2008
1-Somar Sai S/o Ramlal Bargah, aged about 30 years, R/o village Lodhima,
P.S. Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.).
2 - Raju @ Rajkumar aged about 18 years, S/o Gobardhan, R/o village
Lodhima, P.S. Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.).
... Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. -A.J.K. Ambikapur, Distt.-Surguja (C.G.)
.
..Respondent
(Cause title is taken from CIS Software.)
For Appellants : Ms. Sonia Kuldeep on behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Singh,
Advocate.
For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
07.08.2025
1. The appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of
2
sentence dated 25.02.2008 passed by the learned Special Session
Judge, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.
33/2007 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced
as under:-
Conviction Sentence
U/S 325/149 of R.I. for 06 months with fine of
I.P.C. Rs. 1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine to undergo
R.I. for 02 months.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.03.2007 at 4.00 pm, the
appellants along with three other co-accused persons namely Etawar
Ram, Anuk and Bhola Bargah assaulted the complainant Bodhan Ram,
who was returning from his father’s house to his house and abused him
filthily on his caste and threatened him to death on being aware of the
fact that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Thereafter, on the
next day, the complainant lodged F.I.R against them. On the basis of
the aforesaid report, offences under Sections 147, 341, 294, 506B,
325/149 of I.P.C and under Section 3 (1) (x) of S.C. and S.T
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered under Crime No.
03/2007. Thereafter, the accused was taken into custody and the
statement of the accused persons/appellants and other relevant
witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. During the trial
the learned trial Court after hearing the parties has acquitted the
appellants of the charges under Sections 147, 341, 294, 506B of IPC
and under Section 3 (1) (x) of Atrocities Act, 1989, but convicted the
3
present appellants under Section 325/149 of IPC. and acquitted other
three co-accused persons of all the charges levelled against them.
3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet
was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur (C.G.) and
the case was committed to the learned Special Sessions Judge,
Ambikapur, District-Ambikapur (C.G.) for offence under Section
325/149 of IPC.
4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as
many as 07 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants was also
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the
incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded
innocence and false implication in the case. However, no witness has
been adduced in their defence.
5. Learned trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted
and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of
this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not challenging
the conviction part of the impugned judgment, however, he has
confined his arguments to the sentence part thereof only. The learned
trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence
properly. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence is liable to be set aside.
Alternatively, he submits that the incident took place
in the year 2007, this appeal is pending since 2008,
at that time the accused persons/appellants were
aged about 30 years and 18 years respectively, now
4
they are aged 47 years and 35 years respectively;
they have remained in jail for 02 days, they have
never misused the liberty while being on bail, as
such in the interest of justice the appellants may be
sentenced to the period already undergone by them.
7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned
judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated
the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the present
accused/appellant, so this appeal is being devoid of any merit and is
liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost
circumspection.
9. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the learned trial
Court framed charges under Sections 3 (1) (x) of SC and ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, under Sections 147, 341, 294,
506B and 325/149 of IPC against the appellants and after appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the
appellants under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC and ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 147, 341, 294, 506B of IPC
but convicted the appellants under Section 325/149 of IPC and
sentenced them as described in the opening paragraph of this
judgment. Although, the learned counsel for the appellants is not
contesting the case on merits, but looking to the statements of (PW/01)
G.S. Parthe, (PW/02) Umeshwar, (PW/03) Bodhan Ram, (PW/04)
5
Bhakim Ram, (PW/05) Ramu alias Ramsuhavan, it is evident that on
the date of incident, the accused persons assaulted Bodhan Ram.
10. (PW/06) Dr. J.K. Jain advised the complainant for X-Ray vide Ex. P/07
and (PW/07) Dr. M.K. Jain finds fracture as per X-Ray report vide Ex.
P/08, as such the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellants
under Section 325/149 of IPC. As such, the conviction of the appellants
is hereby maintained.
11. As regards sentence, it is clear that the incident took place in the year
2007 and this appeal is pending since 2008. The appellants are now
aged about 47 years and 35 years respectively; and they have
remained in jail for 02 days, they did not misuse the liberty so granted
to them while being on bail, and they are facing lis since 2007 and the
total detention period of the accused/appellants, this Court is of the
opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ends of
justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to the period
already undergone by them under Section 325/149 of IPC. However,
fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to Rs. 10,000/- (Total fine
amount is enhanced Rs. 9000/-) for offence under Section 325/149 of
IPC, in default thereof each of the appellants to sufferr additional R.I. for
03 months. The fine amount already deposited by the appellants shall
be adjusted accordingly. The appellants are directed to deposit the
aforesaid fine amount within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment with the trial Court. The impugned
judgment stands modified to the above extent.
12. Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining
6
conviction of the appellant under Section 325/149 of IPC, they are
sentenced to the period already undergone by them in the aforesaid
Section.
13. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bond shall
remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of
provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023.
14. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back
immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary
action.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
U. K. Raju