Chattisgarh High Court
Udho Shyam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2025
1
Digitally 2025:CGHC:11875
A signed by
ANNAJEE A
RAO ANNAJEE
RAO
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 467 of 2007
1 - Udho Shyam S/o Dassu @ Damu Sonkar, aged about 48 years, R/o
Dayalband, Sonkar Muhalla, P.S. City Kotwali, Distt - Bilaspur C.G.
... Appellant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. City Kotwali, District Bilaspur ...
Respondent(s)
For the appellant : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer.
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judgment on Board
10/03/2025
1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has
been preferred by appellant against the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 25.04.2007 passed in Sessions Case No. 380
of 2006 by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur whereby the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as under:
2
u/s 294 IPC : RI for 3 months and fine of Rs.100/- ,
in default of payment of fine, additional
RI for 7 days.
u/s 323 IPC : RI for 3 months and fine of Rs.100/-, in
default of payment of fine, additional RI
for 7 days.
u/s 436 IPC : RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in
default of payment of fine, additional RI
for 1 month.
u/s 456 IPC : RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.500/-, in
default of payment of fine, additional RI
for 1 month.
.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant works as a cook.
On the date of incident 08.09.2006, when she was at home, the
accused came there and started abusing her mother and sister in front
of the house. When complainant tried to stop him from abusing them,
the accused did not listen to her and continued to abuse them. At the
same time, her brother Pravin came there and when he tried to stop
him from abusing, the accused got angry at him too and started
abusing him and hit him with a brick-bat. Praveen sustained an injury
over his left eye-brow and blood oozed out. Then Praveen and
complainant went to the Police Station to file a report. The accused
broke opened the lock, entered their house and took out clothes etc.,
from the cupboard and set them on fire. Complainant’s father
Manohar Lal who was living nearby informed about the burning of
clothes at the Police Station. People have seen the incident. The
accused also caught hold of the complainant and slapped her. A report
3
of the incident was filed in the Police Station vide Ex.P-1. During
investigation, seizure memos, spot map and Panchnama regarding
property damage for Rs.100/- were prepared and injured Pravin was
medically examined and accused was arrested. After completing
investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
3. The prosecution has in all examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 9
documents to prove its case. The accused was examined under
Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication.
After conclusion of trial and considering the evidence of prosecution
witnesses and material available on record, learned Trial Court vide
impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as
mentioned above.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want
to press this appeal on merits and confines his argument only on
sentence part. He also submits that out of the maximum jail sentence of
7 years awarded to him u/s 436 IPC, he has already remained in jail for
about 2 years and 17 days. He submits that the incident took place in
September, 2006, since then the appellant is facing the lis and this
appeal is pending since 2007 and now he is aged about 67 years. He
further submits that the appellant is an illiterate person and there are no
criminal antecedents against him. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence
of the appellant under section 436 IPC may be reduced to the period
already undergone by him in the interest of justice.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment
and opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant.
4
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also
perused the material available on record including the impugned
judgment.
7. Complainant Shobha Devi (P.W.1) has stated that the accused
came to her house in the night and abused her and thereafter when her
brother Pravin came and tried to stop accused from abusing her,
accused caused injury to her brother. Injured Pravin (P.W.2) has also
stated that when he tried to pacify the accused, he abused him and hit
him with a brick-bat thereby he sustained injury over his left eye-brow.
The statement of injured Pravin (P.W.2) stood firm by the Dr. R.K.
Upadhyay (P.W.8). Manoharlal (P.W.3) who is father of complainant
has further corroborated the statements of P.W.1 & P.W.2. He has also
stated that the residents of locality informed him about the burning of
clothes by accused at the house of complainant.
8. Having gone through the material available on record and the
court statements of complainant (P.W.1), injured Pravin Sonkar (P.W.2),
Dr. R.K. Upadhyay (P.W.8) and Manohar Lal (P.W.3) this Court does
not see any illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as
regards the conviction of the appellant.
9. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the facts that the
incident had taken place in 2006 about 19 years ago and further
considering the fact that the maximum sentence awarded to him is RI
for 7 years , out of which, he has already remained in jail for about 2
5
years and 17 days and is facing the lis since 2006 and further looking
to his age and considering the fact that no criminal antecedents are
reported against him, in the interest of justice and in the considered
opinion of this Court, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of
the appellant from R.I. for 7 years to the period already undergone by
him i.e. 2 years and 17 days for the offence punishable under Section
436 IPC. However, the fine amounts imposed against him shall remain
intact. It is ordered accordingly. It is made clear that conviction for the
other offences under sections 294, 323 & 456 is also maintained and
the sentence thereof is set off from the custody period already
undergone.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
11. The appellant is on bail. He need not again surrender in this case.
His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of
the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC.
12. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record
be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and
necessary action.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Rao
[ad_1]
Source link