Partly allowed

Boda Ram @ Ramdhar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Sept 2008CRA/363/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bilaspur dealt with two appeals against conviction and sentence for offences under sections 324/34 IPC. The court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants, ordering their release.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; appellants set at liberty forthwith.

Boda Ram @ Ramdhar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2008)

¶1

H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR

¶2

[SB: Hon'ble Mr.T.P.Sharma.J.I

¶3

Criminal Appea! No. 363_ol2006

¶4

APPELLANT Bodaram aiias Ramdhar son of Buturam agsd about45 years caste Lohar resident of Chandarglri, Manajhipara, Police Station Darma, District Bastar (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENT jState of Chhattlsgarh through Police - Statlon Darma, District Bastar.

¶5

Shri Vijay Deshmukh counse! forthe appeilant. Shri N.Nahaa Rcy PL for the respondent'State.

¶6

Crimjnal Appeal No. SS4 of 2006

¶7

Paakluram son of Motluram aged about
30 caste Lohar resident of
years
Chandargiri, Manajhipara, Police
Station Darma, District Bastar (CG)
VERSUS
RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh through Poiice
Station Darma, District Bastar.

¶8

¶9

¶10

Shri Ghanshyam Patel coynsel forthe appellant. Shri N.Naha Roy PL for the respondent/State. (ORAL) J U D G !V! EN T Q.9.2008)

¶11

.i r

¶12

Since both the aforesaid appeafs arise out of the same judgment dated 31.3.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 494/2005, they are disposed of by this common judgment. •2. These appea!s are directed against the judgment dated 31.3.2006 passed.by the Sessions Judge; Bastar at Jagdaipur in Sessions Trial No.

¶13

•}
1
d

¶14

.;':••'':i^^-:SSsiSK^L''yU^

¶15

'2-^

¶16

-2.-

¶17

494/2005 whereby the accused/appellants have been conyicted under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.

¶18

Case of the proaecution In brief is that on 22,9.2005 when complainant demanded money from the accused/appellants which was due on them, they caught hold pf him and accused Bodaram attacked him with knife over his chest and back. F!R Ex. P-10 was lodged and the compiainant was medieally e^amined by the doctor. Knife was seized videEx.P-12.

¶19

After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against both the appellants in the Court of Judiciat Magistrte First C!ass, Jagdalapurwho; in turn committed the case to the court of sessions Judge Jagdalpur, where after trial, conviction and sentence as aforesaid followed.

¶20

In order to establish the guiltof the accused/appellants prpsecution has examined as many as six witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under section 313 oftheCode of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges leveled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.

¶21

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶22

During the course of argument learned counse! for the accused/appellanfs submitted thatthey are not challenging the conviction of the accused/appellants and they would argue only on the question of sentence. Learned counse! for the appellants submitted that the appellants are in custody since 30.9.2005 and therefore , it may be sympathetically reconsidered.

¶23

SfflS^Ks.,

¶24

-z-

¶25

Takaing into consideration the period of custody and the manner in which the incident took place, the sentence part of the judgment requires reconsideration.

¶26

Statements of the witnesses and the materia] available on record show that the conviction 6f the appeilants under section 324/34 of the indian Penal Code is just and proper and therefore the same requires to besustained. ;

¶27

; t

¶28

As regards sentence, the appellants have aiready completed two years and 11 months of jail sentence and therefore, l am of the opinion that the period already undergone by them would besufficient to meet the ends of justice.

¶29

Consequently, the appeals are partly allowsd. The conviction of the accused/appellants under section 324/34 ofthelndian Penal Code is maintained. However, sentence of rigofous imprisonment of three years is reducedto the period already undergone by them.It is stated that they are in custody since 30.9.2005. They be set at tiberty forthwith if not

¶30

required in any ottier case.

¶31

il-'-

¶32

;?Sd/-;:TP.Sharma Judge

Boda Ram @ Ramdhar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boda Ram @ Ramdhar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Vs Kushal Das and Anr.

Anup Kumar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Manik Biswas and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Jethu Ram Vs the State of M.P.

Paklu Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanat Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh