Partly allowed

Bhim Sent and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Sept 2012CRR/129/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2001 revised the convictions of applicants under Section 452 and 323 IPC. The revision abated regarding a deceased applicant. While the conviction of Tapu was maintained due to sufficient evidence, the sentence under Section 452 IPC was reduced to the period already undergone plus a fine.

What did the court decide?

Revision partly allowed; conviction of Tapu under Sections 452 and 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC maintained, but sentence under Section 452 IPC reduced to period already undergone plus fine of Rs.

Bhim Sent and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

r'i -f'
IN^TH_E HON'BIE; _HIGH GOURT OP CHHATriSGARH JUDICATmE.
AT BILASPUR
/2001
©r.Rev.No./^-^
^fLICANTS s 1. BHItlSENT S/0 SABAN TXRKZ
PBTITIGNERS
ABOUT 28 YE^RS.
KENDURAM S/G SOMAR URAV
ABOUT 25 'XEl.ARS
1. rEAPU S/0 SWmN SINGH KANNAR
'^ c'^'^/^^ ^-'A" €4^
^ »...'-^; //'"^<?./;r^^'r^AGSD A80UT 20 "E B"
7C><///Z6?^^.^ ^T^ ^:<"^/^/^...ALL ftPPLICANTS ARB RBSID-ENT KGDGURA
<>^,.->.;^c'" ^ ^ ^.^^,^/
P.S. RAOPUR ©ZSTT. SURGUJA (C.G,)
^ '^f^ ^ -^/" •^^/^ v^sus
^ ^)
RESPON&KNT s STATE OP GHHATTISGARK.
K^
NDN-AFPLIGANT
GD,IW3:CT3:ON A ) SBMENCE
I'P.C-
UNDER SECTION 452/34A 6 months R.I. and fine
sentence of Rs < 150 <. 00
Under- Seetion 323/34l*^c;Pine sentenee ofts. 250.00
and in defaults 2 months R^I<»
REVXSION APPlLIGATION^ U/S 39ltR§^D^lKi..U/S_40l
4~
GRIMZNA.L PRGNaXJRK COSE

¶3

"%. ^

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

Criminal Revision No.129 of 2001

¶6

APPLICANTS/: 1. Bhimsent

¶7

(Petitioners) (In Jail)

¶8

Kenduram

¶9

(Died)

¶10

Tapu

¶11

Versus

¶12

RESPONDENT/:

¶13

State of Chhattisgarh

¶14

(Non-applicant)

¶15

{Revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code}

¶16

Present:

¶17

Mr.Ajay Kumar Pandey, counsel forthe applicant.

¶18

Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate forthe State.

¶19

Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(10-9-2012)

¶22

By this revision, the applicants have challenged legality and propriety of the judgment dated 22-3-2001 passed by the 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, in Criminal Appeal No.67/96, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1-11-95 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Ambikapur in Criminal Case No. 138/94, whereby and whereunder the trial Court after holding the applicants guilty for commission of the offence of criminal house trespass after preparation and causing simple hurt in sharing common intention, convicted the applicants under Sections 452 read with Section 34 & 323 read with Section 34 ofthe IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo Rl for six months and pay fine of Rs.150/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rl for two months and to pay fine of Rs.250/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo Rl for two months, respectjvely.

¶23

Counsels for both the parties submit that applicant No,1 Bhimsent also died. Copy ofthe death certificate and panchnama have been produced.

Page 2 of 2

Cr.R.No.129/2001

^:-y
'cy

On account of death of applicant No.1 Bhimsent, the revision, so far as it relates to applicant No.1, also abates and is dismissed as abated qua applicantNo.1 also..

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments and records of the both the Courts below.

¶29

Learned counsel for applicant No.3 submits that evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution only against applicant No.3 Tapu is not sufficient for his conviction, especially under Section 452 ofthe IPC, in the light ofthe fact that on the eve of Holi festival, persons were going to houses of each others and were using colours.

¶30

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the revision.

¶31

In the light of evidences of Idris (PW-1), Dashrath (PW-2) & Devmuniya (PW-3), 1 do not find any illegality in the concurrent finding of facts of both the Courts below relating to conviction of applicant No.3 Tapu under Sections 452 read with Section 34 and 323 read with Section 34 ofthe IPC.

¶32

As regards the question of sentence, the incident took place on the eve of Holi festival where persons usually visit the houses of other persons for using colours and it appears that on account of dispute relating to use of colours that too upon Devmuniya (PW-3), the incident took place which is also common and usual in villages. Considering the circumstances in which the incident took place and pendency of prosecution since 1991, sentences imposed upon the applicant requires reconsideration.

¶33

Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. Conviction of applicant No.3 Tapu under Sections 452 read with Section 34 & 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC is hereby maintained. Instead of Rl for six months and fine of Rs.150/- imposed upon him under Section 452 read with Section 34 ofthe IPC, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e. his period of detention since 22-3-2001 at least till his order of release dated 4-4-2001 for about 13 days and fine of Rs.150/-. Sentence imposed upon him under Section 323 read with Section 34 ofthe IPC is also hereby maintained.

¶34

Sd/T.P. Sharma Judge

¶35

Soma

Bhim Sent and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhim Sent and Ors. 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

Dr.Prakash Narayan Tiwari Vs Municipal Corporation Durg and Anr.

Nain Das Vs Prem Das and Others

Khor Bahra Vs State of C.G.

Ashok Agrawal Vs Dr. Rumi Gond and Ors.

Rajendra Saluja Vs M/S Sundaram Finance Ltd. and Another

Shayam Rice Mill Par Boiling Unit Vs Krishi Upaj Mandi , Naora and 2 Ors.