Partly allowed

Paklu Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Sept 2008CRA/364/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment disposed of two criminal appeals challenging a conviction for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. The High Court confirmed the conviction but commuted the sentence to match the period already served in custody, granting immediate release unless involved in another case.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; appellants released forthwith if not required elsewhere.

Paklu Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2008)

¶1

HIGH CCURT^{OFC§~~H~IATTISGARHATEILASPUR}

¶2

158:^{Hon‘bleIRAr.T..F’.$harma,J‘1}

¶3

~ Criminal Aggea!^{No‘$63of2006}

¶4

' APPELLANT

¶5

Bodaram aiias^{RamdharsonofButuram} 'about aged 45 years caste Lohar resident of Chandargiri, Manajhipara, PaHce Station Darma, District Bastarass)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RESPONDENT siate of Ch'namsgam through Ponce Station Darma,^{DistrictBastar.}

¶8

i Shu‘ Vijay^{Deshmukhcounselfortheappellant} Shti N.Nahaa^{ReyPLfortheraspondent/State.} m

¶9

\Cr'lmimzi xfmny i! NQ 3§é of EGDE

¶10

APPELLANT

¶11

PaaKiumm^{sonofMotluramagedabout} 3O years caste Lohar resident of Chandargiri, Manajhipara, Police Station Darma,^{DistrictBastar(CG)}

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh through Poiice Station Darma,^{DistrictBastar,}

¶14

Shri-Ghanshyam^{Pate!counselfortheappellantQ} Shri N.Naha^{RoyPLfortherespondent/State.}

¶15

lORALl^JUDGMENT l2.9.2008)

¶16

Since both^{theaforesaidappealsariseoutofthesamejudgment} dated 31.3.2006 passed^{bytheSessions} Judge,^{BastaratJagdaipur} in Sessions Trial No. 494/2005, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

¶17

These^{appealsaredirectedagainstthejudgmentdated313.2006} passed^{bytheSessionsJudge,BastaratJagdalpurinSessionsTrialNo.}

¶18

—g‘

¶19

Takaing into consideration^the period^{ofcustodyandthemannerin} which the incident^took place,^thesentence part^ofthe judgment^requires reconsideration.

¶20

Statements of the Witnesses and the^{materiaiavaiiabieon} record Show that the conviction of the appeliants under section 324/34 of the tndian Penal Code is just and proper^{andthereforethesamerequiresto} be sustained. v r

¶21

10‘ As regards sentence.^the appeitants have^{alreadycompletedtwo} ‘er years^and 11“months of jail sentence and^therefore, i am of the opinion that the period already^{undergonebythemwouldbesufficienttomeetthe} a a ends ofjusticel ‘

¶22

Consequently, the appeals are partly allowed. The conviction of the accused/appellants^{undersection324/34ofthelndianPenalCodeis} maintained. However,^{sentence'ofrigorousimprisonmentofthreeyearsis} reduced to the period^{alreadyundergonebythem.} It is stated that they ’be are in custody since 30.92005. They set at liberty forthwith if not ' /’f’ required in any other^case.

¶23

' /’f’

¶24

set/< T,P. SHARMAJudge \j

Paklu Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paklu Ram 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.

Boda Ram @ Ramdhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanat Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh